fS 


mm 


im<ii 


(I 


im 


^^'^''Mhmi>'M\i%li 


-An 


mTt 


&m 


u 


ftf 


m 


tihxaxy  of  t:he  t:heolo0ical  ^tminavy 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 

Presented  by  the 
widow  of  G-eorge  Dugan,    '96 

BS2397 


International   Theological    Library"*, \  uF  Ptf' 

OCT  r^oiccq 


-^^'c^. 


THE    THEOLOGt^^^^MALii^ 


NEW    TESTAMENT 


BY 


GEORGE   BARKER'  STEVENS,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

DWIGHT  PROFESSOR    OF  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY 
IN   YALE   UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1899 


COPYRIGHT,    1899,   BY 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


J.  S.  Gushing  &  Co.  -  Berwick  &  Smith 
Norwood  Mass.  U.S.A. 


TO 
MY    TEACHER    COLLEAGUE    AND    FRIEND 

GEORGE   PAEK  FISHER,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

I    DEDICATE    THIS    BOOK 
IN    GRATITUDE    AND    AFFECTION 


PKEFACE 

The  aim  of  this  volume  is  to  set  forth,  in  systematic 
form,  the  doctrinal  contents  of  the  New  Testament  accord- 
ing to  its  natural  divisions.  The  general  method  pursued 
is  that  which  is  now  common  in  this  branch  of  theological 
science.  Brief  explanations  of  the  mode  of  treating  cer- 
tain portions  of  the  New  Testament,  with  respect  to  which 
important  critical  differences  exist  among  scholars,  are 
given  in  the  chapters  introductory  to  the  several  parts  of 
the  work. 

My  indebtedness  to  other  writers  has  been  acknowledged 
by  means  of  references  to  the  literature  of  the  subject  in 
the  footnotes.  But  all  such  acknowledgments  must,  of 
necessity,  be  very  partial.  I  wish  especially  to  express 
my  obligations  to  the  writings  of  my  teachers  in  earlier 
years.  Professors  Weiss  and  Pfleiderer.  Wendt's  Teach- 
ing of  Jesus  has  been  very  helpful,  especially  in  its  treat- 
ment of  critical  and  historical  considerations  bearing  upon 
interpretation.  Beyschlag's  New  Testament  Theology  has 
been  read  with  interest  and  profit.  Holtzmann's  Lehr- 
buch  der  neutestamentlichen  Theologie  is  a  valuable  encj^clo- 
psedia  for  the  student  of  the  subject.  Its  summaries  of 
the  results  of  critical  exegesis  and  its  copious  citations 
from  the  most  recent  literature  render  it  a  work  of  great 
value  for  reference.  Professor  Bruce's  writings  have 
been  of  real  service,  especially  his  volume  on  the  theology 


viii  PREFACE 

of  Paul.  No  one  lias  written  on  the  subject  with  finer 
insight  and  discrimination.  The  brilliant  treatise  of  Pro- 
fessor Menegoz,  entitled  Le  Peche  et  la  Redemption  d'apres 
St.  Paul,  has  afforded  me  many  useful  suggestions.  With 
none  of  these  writers,  however,  have  I  been  able  in  all 
respects  to  agree.  Especially  do  I  dissent  from  the 
interpretations  given  by  Wendt  and  Beyschlag  to  those 
portions  of  the  New  Testament  which  relate  to  the  person 
and  work  of  Christ,  and  from  the  presuppositions  on  which 
Holtzmann's  construction  and  estimate  of  New  Testament 
history  and  theology  rest. 

Appended  to  the  volume  will  be  found  a  select  bibliog- 
raphy which  comprises  the  most  important  recent  litera- 
ture of  the  subject.  Articles  and  brochures  on  minor 
topics  in  Biblical  Theology,  which  would  be  likely  to 
interest  only  the  specialist,  have  not  been  included.  In 
accordance  with  its  somewhat  general  purpose  the  list  is 
limited  to  more  comprehensive  works.  A  much  fuller 
bibliography,  arranged  on  a  different  principle,  is  prefixed 
to  Holtzmann's  Lehrbueh. 

As  respects  its  aim  the  present  work  is  not  apologetic 
or  controversial.  It  seeks  to  expound,  not  to  defend.  It 
also  recognizes  the  boundaries  between  the  explicit  teach- 
ings of  the  New  Testament  and  inferences  which  may  be 
drawn  from  them,  however  natural  or  apparently  necessary 
such  inferences  may  seem  to  be.  The  limitations  of  space 
which  were  prescribed  for  the  volume  have  rendered  it 
necessary  to  bestow  careful  attention  upon  the  question 
of  proportion  and  to  present  the  various  subjects  which 
are  discussed  as  succinctly  as  possible.  Every  chapter 
has  involved  a  study  in  condensation. 


PREFACE  IX 

The  reader  will  observe  that  while  much  importance  is 
attached  to  the  influence  of  current  ideas  upon  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  I  do  not  believe  that  Chris- 
tianity is  a  mere  product  of  the  age  in  which  it  arose.  I 
hold  to  the  unique  and  distinctive  originality  of  Jesus  and 
to  the  supernatural  origin  of  his  gospel.  The  truths  and 
facts  which  constitute  this  gospel  are,  indeed,  historically 
conditioned,  and  of  these  historical  conditions  the  Biblical 
theologian  must  take  full  and  careful  account.  But  that 
movement  of  God  in  human  life  and  history  which  we  call 
Christianity  transcends  its  historical  relations  and  limita- 
tions, and  can  be  justly  estimated  only  by  recognizing  its 
divine  origin  and  singularity.  This  view  of  the  Christian 
religion  is  not  merely  an  assumption  which  is  carried  into 
the  present  study,  but  equally  a  conclusion  which  is  estab- 
lished by  the  study  itself. 

GEORGE   BARKER   STEVENS. 

Yale  University, 
January,  1899. 


CONTENTS 
PART   I 

THE    TEACHING    OF    JESUS    ACCORDING    TO    THE 
SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS 

>  CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 

Introductory      1 

CHAPTER  II 
The  Gospel  and  the  Law .17 

CHAPTER  III 
The  Kingdom  of  God 27 

CHAPTER  IV 
The  Son  of  Man 41 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Son  of  God 54 

CHAPTER  VI 
The  Fatherhood  of  God 65 

CHAPTER  VII 
Good  and  Evil  Spirits 76 

CHAPTER  VIII 

Human  Xature  and  Sinfulness 92 

xi 


xii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   IX 

PAGE 

The  True  Righteousness 104 

CHAPTER  X 
The  Messianic  Salvation 119 

CHAPTER  XI 
The  Christian  Brotherhood 135 

CHAPTER  XII 
The  Parousia  and  the  Judgment 150 


PART   II 

THE    TEACHING    OF    JESUS    ACCORDING    TO    THE 
FOURTH   GOSPEL 

CHAPTER  I 
Introductory 167 

CHAPTER  II 
The  Idea  of  God 177 

CHAPTER  III 
The  Sinful  World 187 

CHAPTER  IV 

Jesus'  Testimony  to  Himself  .        .        .        .        .        .    199 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Holy  Spirit .        •        .213 

CHAPTER  VI 
Eternal  Life 224 


CONTENTS  Xlll 


CHAPTER  VII 

PAGE 

ESCHATOLOGY .      234 


PART   III 

THE  PRIMITIVE  APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

CHAPTER  I 
Introductory      245 

CHAPTER  II 
The  Discourses  in  the  Acts 258 

CHAPTER  in 
The  Epistle  of  James 276 

CHAPTER  IV 
The  First  Epistle  of  Peter 293 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Epistle  of  Jude  and  Second  Peter     ....    312 


PART  IV 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  PAUL 

CHAPTER  I 
Introductory 325 

CHAPTER  n 

Flesh  and  Spirit 338 

CHAPTER  III 
Adam  and  the  Race 349 


XIV  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  IV 

PAGE 

The  Law  of  God        . 362 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Divine  Purpose 375 

CHAPTER  VI 
Jesus  Christ 389 

CHAPTER  VII 
The  Death  of  Christ 403 

CHAPTER  VIII 
Justification 417 

CHAPTER  IX 
The  Holy  Spirit »        .        .    431 

CHAPTER  X 
Social  Morality "...    446 

CHAPTER  XI 
The  Church 458 

CHAPTER  Xn 
Eschatology 470 


PART    V 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE 
HEBREWS 

CHAPTER  I 
Introductory      483 

CHAPTER  II 
The  Old  and  the  New  Covenant  .....     490 


CONTENTS  XV 

CHAPTER  III 

PAGE 

The  JMediator 498 

CHAPTER  IV 
The  High  Priesthood  of  Christ 506 

CHAPTER  V 
Faith  and  Hope 515 


PART   VI 

THE   THEOLOGY   OF  THE   APOCALYPSE 

CHAPTER  I 
Introductory      .....    523 

CHAPTER  II 

The*  Lamb  of  God 536 

CHAPTER  III 
The  Christian  Community .        .    543 

CHAPTER  IV 
The  Antichristian  World-Power  .....    550 

CHAPTER  V 
Conflict  and  Victory ■     557 

PART   VII 

THE   THEOLOGY   OF  JOHN 

CHAPTER  I 
Introductory 564 


XVI  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   II 

PAGE 

The  Idea  of  God 569 

CHAPTER  III 
The  Logos 577 

CHAPTER  IV 
The  Way  of  Salvation   .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .    586 


Bibliography 593 

General  Index »        ,        .        .     597 

Index  of  Texts  ....,..,        ,     605 


THE  THEOLOGY 


NEW   TESTAMENT 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT 

PART  I 

THE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS   ACCORDING  TO 
THE   SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS 

CHAPTER   I 

INTRODUCTORY 

The  task  which  lies  before  us  in  this  part  of  our  work 
is  to  present  as  clear  a  picture  as  possible  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  on  the  basis  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  The 
account  of  his  teaching  which  is  preserved  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  so  different  in  form  from  that  contained  in  the 
Synoptics  that  it  requires  a  separate  treatment.  In  con- 
nection with  the  study  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  the  two  types 
of  tradition  will  be  brought  into  frequent  comparison. 

Jesus  did  not  commit  his  teaching  to  writing.  He 
spoke  his  message  and  did  his  work,  and  left  the  recording 
of  his  words  and  deeds  to  those  whose  lives  had  been 
deeply  impressed  with  their  divine  significance  and  value. 
How  long  a  time  passed  before  the  first  disciples  began  to 
make  written  memoranda  of  the  Lord's  life  we  cannot  say, 
but,  probably,  several  years.  At  first  there  would  be  no 
occasion  to  write  narratives  of  his  sayings  and  acts,  since 
they  were  vividly  photographed  upon  the  memories  of  all 
his  followers.  The  leading  events  of  his  life  and  his  most 
characteristic  sayings  were  preserved  in  oral  tradition,  and 

B  1 


2  THE    SYNOPTIC   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

were  constantly  rehearsed,  in  a  more  or  less  stereotyped 
form,  in  the  preaching  and  teaching  of  the  apostles.  As 
time  passed  on,  however,  it  became  necessary  to  compose 
written  narratives  of  the  Lord's  words  and  deeds.  The 
gradual  dispersion  of  the  Christian  community  from  Jeru- 
salem, the  addition  of  new  members  to  the  company  who 
required  definite  instruction,  and  the  passing  away  of  some 
of  the  eye  and  ear  witnesses,  would  be  among  the  motives 
which  would  prompt  to  the  writing  of  these  narratives. 
The  prologue  of  Luke's  Gospel  (i.  1-4)  is  very  instructive 
in  this  connection.  Luke  says  that  before  he  wrote  his 
Gospel  many  narratives  (^BLTjyrja-ei^^  of  the  Lord's  life  had 
been  written.^  He  implies  that  these  were,  in  general, 
fragmentary  and  insufficient ;  that  he  was  acquainted  with 
some  of  them,  and  proposed  to  use  them  in  constructing 
his  own  fuller  account  of  Jesus'  life.  These  numerous 
writers  (TroXXot)  of  primitive  Gospels,  as  we  may  call 
them,  had  written,  Luke  says,  in  accordance  with  the 
tradition  of  the  Lord's  words,  which  had  been  handed 
down  from  the  beginning  (of  his  ministry)  by  those  who 
had  seen  and  heard  him  (avTOTrrai).  These  earlier  writers 
to  whom  Luke  refers  were  not  themselves  apostles  or  im- 
mediate disciples,  but  they  were  acquainted,  at  first  hand, 
with  the  primitive  tradition  of  the  Lord's  words  and  deeds 
as  it  had  been  preserved  among  the  eye  and  ear  witnesses. 
That  original  tradition  may  have  been  oral,  or  written,  or 
both ;  these  writers  had  access  to  it,  and  based  their 
narratives  upon  it,  and  Luke,  in  turn,  had  access  to  their 
work,  besides  possessing  independent  knowledge,  derived 
from  carefully  tracing  the  course  of  events  from  the  very 
beginning  (^avcoOev)  of  the  Master's  life.  Moreover,  in 
dedicating  his  book  to  a  certain  Theophilus,  probably  a 
man  of  noble  birth  who  had  recently  become  a  convert 
and  who   was,   perhaps,  the   author's  patron,   Luke  dis- 

1  The  so-called  Logia  of  Jesiis,  recently  discovered  in  Egypt,  are  of 
interest  as  illustrating  the  existence,  in  the  second  century,  of  a  hitherto 
unknown  collection  of  reputed  sayings  of  Jesus.  Even  if  unauthentic, 
they  illustrate  the  many,  if  not  the  earlier,  efforts  which  were  made  to 
preserve  the  Lord's  words  in  writing. 


INTRODUCTORY  3 

closes  to  us  one  of  the  first  uses  of  the  written  Gospels 
—  the  instruction  and  confirmation  in  faith  and  cer- 
tainty of  those  who  were  dependent  upon  the  testimony 
of  others  for  accurate  knowledge  of  Jesus'  teaching  and 
work. 

Have  any  of  these  primitive  Gospels  to  which  Luke 
refers  been  preserved  to  us?  The  Gospel  of  Mark  is 
probably  one  of  them.  A  critical  comparison  of  Mark 
and  Luke  shows  that  Luke  has  freely  used  our  second 
Gospel  in  the  construction  of  his  narrative.  Moreover, 
the  earliest  tradition  which  has  been  preserved  to  us,  the 
testimony  of  Papias,^  recorded  in  Eusebius,^  respecting 
the  origin  of  Mark's  Gospel,  agrees  strikingly  with  Luke's 
description  of  the  earlier  Gospels,  which  he  knew  and 
used.  Papias  testifies  that  Mark  was  known  as  the  inter- 
preter of  Peter  ;  that  he  wrote  down  with  accuracy,  but  not 
in  chronological  order,  the  events  of  Jesus'  life ;  but  that 
he  did  this  from  information  given  him  by  Peter,  because 
he  was  not  himself  an  eye-witness. ^  This  would  accord 
exactly  with  what  Luke  says  :  He  drew  up  a  narrative  in 
accordance  with  knowledge  which  had  been  delivered  to 
him  by  an  eye-witness  (Peter).  It  is  one  of  the  best 
attested  results  of  New  Testament  criticism  that  Mark's 
Gospel  is  the  earliest  of  our  three  Synoptics,  and  that  it 
supplied  the  framework  on  which  the  Gospel  of  Luke  is 
constructed. 

But  Mark  was  one  of  the  "  many  "  to  whom  Luke  refers. 
He  was  not  an  apostle  nor  was  he  a  personal  follower  of 
Jesus.  Does  there  still  remain  to  us  any  specimen  of  the 
tradition  which  the  first  disciples  who  personally  accom- 
panied Jesus  preserved?     Have  we  any  written  narrative 

1  Papias  was  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  in  Phrygia,  and  died  about  163. 
According  to  Irenseus  (d,  about  202)  he  was  a  disciple  of  the  apostle 
John.  Against  Heresies,  Bk,  V.  oh.  xxxiii.  4.  He  composed  a  treatise  in 
five  books  (now  lost)  entitled,  Interpretation  of  the  Lord's  Oracles,  \oyLwv 
KvpLaKQv  e^riyrjaLS. 

2  Ecclesiastical  History,  III.  39. 

3  The  testimony  of  Irenseus  is  to  the  same  effect :  "  Mark,  the  disciple 
and  interpreter  of  Peter,  did  also  hand  down  to  us  in  writing  what  had 
been  preached  by  Peter."     Against  Heresies,  Bk.  III.  ch.  i.  1. 


4  THE  SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

which  emanates  directly  from  an  apostle  or  other  eye- 
witness? Turning  again  to  the  section  of  Eusebius  just 
cited,  we  find  this  quotation  from  Papias :  "  Matthew  com- 
posed the  Oracles  (to.  \6^ia)  in  the  Hebrew  dialect,  and 
each  one  interpreted  them  as  he  was  able."  Irenseus  con- 
firms this  assertion.  1  If  this  ancient  testimony  is  cor- 
rect, we  have  here  a  trace  of  a  primitive,  apostolic,  written 
source. 

Numerous  perplexing  questions  now  arise  concerning 
this  writing  which  Papias  calls  the  Oracles,  or  Logia,  into 
which  I  cannot  here  enter  at  length.  For  a  discussion  of 
them  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  treatises  on  New  Testa- 
ment Introduction.  It  is,  at  present,  the  general  belief  of 
scholars  that  this  tradition  is  trustworthy,  and  that  the 
Hebrew  Logia  of  Matthew  is  the  principal  literary  basis  of 
our  first  Gospel.  In  my  own  judgment  this  is  a  second 
secure  result  of  New  Testament  criticism.  The  Xoyia  of 
Matthew  would  be  an  example  of  the  tradition  (^TrapdSocn^ ; 
cf.  irapehoa-av)  of  the  eye-witnesses  QavTOTrrai)  upon  which 
the  many  (iroWoC)  mentioned  by  Luke  had  based  their 
narratives  (^Si-qyTjaei^ ;  Lk.  i.  1-4).  It  is  probable  that  the 
Logia  consisted  mainly  of  sayings  and  discourses  of  Jesus 
connected  together  by  brief  historical  narratives  ;  that  this 
writing  was  early  translated  into  Greek,  and  incorporated 
into  our  first  Gospel  by  another  hand  than  that  of  Matthew. 
We  thus  get  the  elements  of  the  "  two-source  theory  "  of 
the  Synoptics  now  common  among  scholars.  It  may  be 
stated  thus:  Mark,  the  oldest  of  our  Synoptics  in  their 
present  form,  is,  according  to  Papias,  based  primarily  on 
the  testimony  of  Peter.  Other  sources  were  probably  open 
to  him;  Weiss  holds  that  Matthew's  Logia  was  one  of 
these,  but  this  view  is  disputed  by  other  scholars.  Mark 
was  freely  used  by  both  the  first  and  third  evangelists. 
These  two  writers  also  freely  used  Matthew's  Logia,  each 
combining  this  writing  with  Mark  in  his  own  way.  Their 
common,  but  independent,  use  of  the  Logia  goes  far  to 
explain  their  agreement  in  places  in  which  they  are  inde- 

1  "  Matthew  also  issued  a  written  Gospel  among  the  Hebrews  in  their 
own  dialect,"  etc.     Against  Heresies,  Bk.  III.  ch.  i.  1. 


INTRODUCTOEY  5 

pendent  of  Mark.  Thus  Mark  and  the  Logia  are  the 
"  two  sources  "  referred  to  in  this  theory.^ 

It  cannot  be  said,  in  general,  whether  the  first  or  the 
third  evangelist  has  more  faithfully  preserved  the  apostolic 
source.  Now  one,  now  the  other,  gives  its  narratives  in 
greater  fulness  or  in  more  natural  connections.  From  the 
way  in  which  the  Logia  material  is  distributed  in  the  first 
Gospel,  it  has  happened  that  many  sayings  have  fallen  out 
because  they  found  no  point  of  connection  with  the  Mark 
narrative,  which  Luke,  by  his  method  of  using  the  former, 
has  preserved.  It  is,  therefore,  probable  that  the  original 
order  of  the  Logia  material  is  better  preserved  in  Luke.  In 
the  first  Gospel  the  sayings  are  more  frequently  grouped 
together  on  the  principle  of  internal  kinship,  without  re- 
gard to  their  original  connection.  On  the  question  whether 
there  is  a  direct  interdependence  between  the  first  and 
third  Gospels,  specialists  are  divided.  Holtzmann  and 
Wendt  hold  that  Luke  knew  and  used  one  first  Gospel ; 
Weiss  is  of  the  contrary  opinion. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  according  to  the  view  which  I 
adopt  as  probable,  our  first  Gospel  is  not,  in  its  present 
form,  the  work  of  the  apostle  Matthew.  The  traditional 
designation  of  it  as  "  The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  " 
is,  however,  justified,  since  it  is  an  amplification  of  Mat- 
thew's Logia.  For  convenience  I  shall  use  the  name 
"  Matthew "  when  I  refer  to  the  book  which  bears  his 
name,  in  the  same  way  as  I  do  "  Mark  "  and  "  Luke." 

1  It  must,  however,  in  fairness,  be  mentioned  that  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  scholars  doubt  the  correctness  of  the  Papias  tradition,  and  call  in 
question  theories  based  upon  the  supposition  of  a  Matthaic  Logia.  It 
may  happen  that  the  "  two-source  theory  "  will  be  modified  by  later  criti- 
cism, or  even  supplanted.  It  cannot  be  claimed  that,  in  itself,  it  presents 
a  final  solution  of  the  Synoptic  problem.  It  should,  therefore,  be  held, 
not  as  a  demonstrated  truth,  but  as  a  working  hypothesis  —  the  best 
which  criticism  has,  thus  far,  attained.  I  have  used  it  as  such.  The  sub- 
stance of  my  portrayal  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  would  not  be  materially 
affected  by  its  modification.  I  cannot  doubt  that  the  elements  which 
entered  into  the  formation  of  our  Gospels  were  so  numerous,  and  their 
combination  so  complicated  that  no  theory  is  capable  of  fully  explaining 
all  the  facts.  The  truth  of  such  theories  should  be  regarded  as  approxi- 
mate, and  their  evidence  as  probable  only. 


6  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

These  three  forms  of  the  Synoptic  tradition,  emanating, 
as  they  do,  from  three  different  hands  and  yet  being,  to 
a  great  extent,  interdependent  and  based  upon  common 
documents,  give  rise  to  very  perplexing  questions  when 
the  narratives  are  treated  critically  and  in  detail.  It  has 
long  been  felt  that  the  scholar's  work  was  not  done  when 
the  three  narratives  were  adjusted  to  each  other  as  in- 
geniously as  possible  and  printed  side  by  side.  The  strik- 
ing similarities  and  the  no  less  striking  differences  still 
remain  to  be  explained.  Variations  of  order  and  apparent 
repetitions  of  events  need  to  be  accounted  for.  These 
problems  have  given  rise  to  the  science  of  Gospel-criti- 
cism, or  Higher  Criticism  as  applied  to  the  Gospels.  This 
department  of  Biblical  learning  has  been  diligently  culti- 
vated in  recent  times,  and  to  it  such  specialists  as  Holtz- 
mann,  Weiss,  Wendt,  and  Resch  have  devoted  the  most 
painstaking  and  conscientious  labor.  It  deals  with  the 
literary  and  historical  problems  to  which  a  critical  com- 
parison of  the  narratives  gives  rise.  Its  work  logically 
precedes  that  of  exegesis,  and,  in  many  cases,  has  an  im- 
portant bearing  upon  interpretation.  In  the  portrayal  of 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  which  follows  I  shall  hope  not 
to  contravene  any  well-established  result  of  criticism. 
Although  the  purpose  of  my  work  does  not  require  me 
directly  to  discuss  the  questions  which  arise  within  this 
field,  —  and  the  limits  of  this  volume  would  not  permit 
it,  —  yet  I  shall,  in  the  more  important  instances,  refer  the 
reader  to  works  in  which  such  problems  are  considered 
and  shall  indicate  the  bearing  of  the  points  at  issue.^ 

It  is  a  question  of  the  utmost  importance  for  the  student 
of  our  subject,  how  the  views  of  our  sources  at  which  criti- 
cism has  arrived,  affect  the  reliability  of  our  Synoptic  Gos- 

1  The  first  or  untranslated  part  of  Wendt' s  work,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  I 
shall  cite  by  that  title.  The  second  or  translated  part,  originally  entitled 
Der  Inhalt  der  Lehre  Jesu,  I  shall  cite  from  the  translation  which  bears 
the  title,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus.  For  the  convenience  of  most  readers, 
I  shall  cite  the  translation  of  Weiss's  Leben  Jesu  instead  of  the  original, 
and  so  in  the  case  of  other  German  works  of  which  there  are  translations 
in  common  use.  Whenever  practicable  and  useful,  I  shall  also  add,  in 
parenthesis,  references  to  the  original. 


INTRODUCTORY 


pels.  No  one  of  them  is  the  immediate  product  of  an 
apostle  or  other  eye-witness.  In  time  and  authorship  they 
belong  to  the  next  generation  after  that  of  Jesus  himself. 
They  are,  however,  based  upon  apostolic  tradition.  Mark 
rests  mainly,  as  we  have  seen,  upon  information  derived 
from  Peter  which,  through  the  incorporation  of  Mark  into 
Matthew  and  Luke,  is  one  main  source  of  both  the  other 
Synoptics.  The  other  principal  source  is  an  apostolic 
writing,  the  Logia  of  Matthew.  We  have,  then,  an  apos- 
tolic basis  for  our  first  three  Gospels  which  entitles  them, 
in  a  purely  historical  judgment,  to  make  a  strong  claim  to 
trustworthiness.  If  this  interdependence  and  use  of  com- 
mon materials  which  criticism  recognizes,  have  confused 
certain  details  and  occasioned  a  misapprehension  of  some 
events  and  sayings,  we  can  only  say  that  this  was  inevita- 
ble in  such  a  process  of  collation  and  revision  as  both 
external  testimony  and  internal  evidence  prove  to  have 
taken  place.  The  substantial  truthfulness  of  the  Synoptic 
picture  of  our  Lord's  life  is  only  the  more  naturally  and 
realistically  attested.  If  criticism  has  been  compelled  to 
discredit  those  methods  of  argument  by  which  the  older 
Apologetics  sought  to  prove  that  all  three  Synoptics  really 
emanated  from  apostles,  and  by  forced  harmonizing  and 
strained  interpretation  explained  away  differences  and  rec- 
onciled discrepancies,  it  has  substituted  for  this  claim  of 
formal  infallibility  for  the  Gospels  a  valid  and  defensi- 
ble assertion  of  substantial  historical  trustworthiness.  It 
maintains  that  the  Gospels  rest  upon  reliable  testimony  and 
that  they  can  stand  upon  the  same  grounds  on  which  other 
historical  narratives  stand.  Their  authors  were  competent 
men  who  possessed  information  respecting  their  subject  — 
not,  indeed,  complete,  but  yet  sufficient  for  their  purpose 
—  and  who,  therefore,  wrote  of  Christ's  words  and  deeds 
with  knowledge,  intelligence,  honesty,  and  sympathy.  If 
this  claim  is  a  more  modest  one  than  that  which  was  for- 
merly made,  it  has  the  advantage  of  being  the  one  claim 
which  the  Gospels  make  for  themselves  and  the  additional 
advantage  of  agreeing  alike  with  the  earliest  Church  tradi- 
tion and  with  the  phenomena  of  the  Gospels  themselves. 


8  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

The  various  types  of  New  Testament  teaching  have  of 
late  been  studied  with  constant  reference  to  their  histori- 
cal background.  The  teaching  of  Jesus,  for  example,  is 
viewed  in  its  connection  with  Old  Testament  thought  and 
with  the  religious  ideas  which  prevailed  among  the  Jews 
in  his  time.  To  the  first  of  these  relations  we  shall  devote 
a  se^^arate  chapter.  The  relations  of  likeness  and  of  dif- 
ference between  the  popular  religious  teaching  of  the  later 
Judaism  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  form  a  theme  too  vast 
to  admit  of  full  discussion  in  this  volume.  Of  recent 
writers  on  our  present  subject  Wendt,  in  his  Teaching  of 
Jesus,  and  Holtzmann,  in  his  Lehrhueh  der  neutestament- 
lichen  Theologie,  have  most  elaborately  portrayed  this 
popular  teaching  and  exhibited  its  relations  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus.  To  these  works  I  shall,  from  time  to  time, 
refer.  It  will  serve  our  present  purpose,  however,  briefly 
to  advert  to  some  of  the  most  significant  points  of  connec- 
tion  between  Jewish  ideas  and  the  thought  of  Jesus. 

The  later  Jewish  teaching  and  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
alike  had  their  historical  roots  in  the  Old  Testament. 
But  the  former  was  developed  by  traditional  accretion 
and  fanciful  interpretations ;  the  latter  freely  and  inde- 
pendently by  expanding  the  germs  of  essential  spiritual 
truth  which  were  implicit  in  the  Old  Testament  religion. 
Both  the  scribe  and  Jesus  held  fast  to  the  Old  Testament, 
but  they  used  it  in  the  most  different  ways.  To  the  scribe 
it  was  a  repository  of  external  rules  and  distinctions,  ad- 
mitting of  endless  subdivision  and  extension  ;  to  Jesus  it 
was  a  provisional  expression  of  great  spiritual  truths  and 
laws  which  needed  to  be  rescued  from  the  limitations  in 
which  they  had  been  enclosed  and  given  their  true,  uni- 
versal scope  and  validity. 

In  its  outward  form  and  method  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
was  much  like  that  which  prevailed  in  his  time.  He  stood 
or  sat  in  the  midst  of  a  group  of  disciples  or  other  hearers 
and  explained  and  illustrated  his  thoughts.  His  teaching 
was  largely  embodied  in  pithy,  pointed  sayings  which  were 
designed  and  adapted  to  impress  the  popular  mind.  He 
taught  rather  by  suggestion  than  b}^  presenting  a  fall  and 


INTRODUCTORY  9 

systematic  view  of  any  subject.  It  is  unlikely  that  the 
extended  groups  of  didactic  sayings  which  appear  in  the 
Gospels  as  if  they  constituted  continuous  discourses  were, 
in  all  cases,  spoken  at  one  time.  They  are  often  collec- 
tions of  sayings  which  have  been  massed  together,  as,  for 
example,  the  "  Sermon  on  the  Mount "  and  the  group  of 
parables  in  Mt.  xiii. 

Jesus  frequently  taught  by  the  use  of  examples.  For 
instance,  he  explained  the  nature  of  true  righteousness 
(Mt.  V.  20  sg.)  by  citing  from  the  Old  Testament  and 
from  Rabbinic  teaching,  maxims  which  were  either  imper- 
fect or  inadequate  in  themselves,  or  were  erroneously 
applied  by  the  people.  Sometimes  he  taught  by  action, 
as  when  he  took  a  child  in  his  arms  in  order  to  emphasize 
the  necessity  of  childlikeness  in  those  who  would  be  mem- 
bers of  his  Kingdom.  But  one  of  the  most  striking  forms 
of  Jesus'  teaching  was  the  parable.  A  parable  is  a  narra- 
tive of  some  real  or  imaginary  event  in  nature  or  in  com- 
mon life,  which  is  adapted  to  suggest  a  moral  or  religious 
truth.  The  parable  rests  upon  some  correspondence,  more 
or  less  exact,  between  events  in  nature  or  in  human  expe- 
rience, and  the  truths  of  religion.  Wendt  distinguishes 
two  classes  of  parables  :  ^  (1)  those  in  which  some  fact  in 
the  actual  world  is  adduced  as  illustrating  a  moral  or 
religious  principle,  and  (2)  those  in  which  some  imagined 
events,  or  series  of  events,  —  which  might  naturally  hap- 
pen,—  is  narrated  to  illustrate  a  spiritual  truth  or  process. 
Examples  of  the  first  sort  of  parables  are :  "  They  that  are 
whole  have  no  need  of  a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick  " 
(Mk.  ii.  17),  and  the  sayings  about  sewing  a  piece  of  un- 
dressed cloth  upon  an  old  garment  (Mk.  ii.  21)  and  about 
a  kingdom  divided  against  itself  (Mk.  iii.  24).  It  is  the 
second  class  of  parables  —  the  parable-stories,  such  as  those 
of  the  Sower  (Mk.  iv.  3  sq.),  the  Vineyard  (Mt.  xxi.  28  sq.), 
and  the  Prodigal  Son  (Lk.  xv.  11  s^.),  which  excite  the 
greatest  interest  in  the  student  of  the  Bible.^ 

1  Teaching  of  Jesus,  I.  117  sq.  (orig.  p,  84  sq.). 

2  An  interesting  comparison  between  the  parable  and  other  figurative 
forms  of  speech,  such  as  the  fable,  the  myth,  and  the  allegory,  will  be 
found  in  R,  C.  Trench's  JSJ'otes  on  the  Parables,  ch.  i. 


10  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

A  word  must  here  be  said  respecting  the  interpretation 
of  this  class  of  parables.  The  commonest  error  of  inter- 
preters is  to  apply  the  allegorical  method  to  the  parables, 
that  is,  to  seek  to  find  some  special  and  distinct  meaning 
in  each  detail  of  the  parable-story.  This  method  assumes 
that  the  parable  is  intended  to  present  either  a  complete 
parallel  at  every  point  between  the  illustrative  narrative 
employed  and  the  religious  truth  to  be  inculcated,  or  even 
to  teach  a  whole  series  of  religious  lessons  all  at  once.  To 
some  parables  this  method  can  be  applied  without  apparent 
violence  to  their  intention,  but  this  is  because  they  are  so 
simple  and  compact  as  to  form  one  indivisible  picture, 
or  because  the  analogy  used  happens  to  be  especially  com- 
plete and  many-sided.  In  most  cases,  however,  this  method 
breaks  down  entirely.  Indeed,  in  cases  where  it  seems 
successful,  its  apparent  success  is  never  due  to  its  sound- 
ness as  a  method.  There  is  hardly  any  limit  to  the  absurdi- 
ties which  have  been  derived  from  the  parables  by  trying 
to  make  every  character  which  is  introduced  into  them, 
and  every  incident  of  the  parable-story,  represent  some 
particular  person  or  symbolize  some  religious  truth  in  the 
application. 

A  sound  general  principle  for  the  interpretation  of  the 
parable  is  that  it  is  intended  to  teach  one  single  truth. 
The  parallel  between  the  story  which  embodies  this  truth 
and  its  spiritual  counterpart  may  be  more  or  less  complete. 
The  point  of  the  teaching  may  lie  in  the  whole  picture 
which  the  parable  presents,  or  it  may  lie  in  some  single 
aspect  or  element  of  the  picture.  The  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  and  that  of  the  Sower  are  examples  of  para- 
bles whose  significance  is  found  in  the  entire  picture  which 
they  present.  No  violence  is  done  in  these  cases  by  assign- 
ing a  didactic  value  in  interpretation  even  to  the  details 
of  the  parable-story;  indeed,  we  find  that  this  is  done  by 
our  Lord  himself  in  his  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the 
Sower.i     But  in  many  cases  the  details  of  the  parable  are 

1  Weiss,  Life  of  Christ,  II.  206,  215  (Bk.  IV.  cli.  ii.),  regards  the  ex- 
planation of  this  parable,  which  is  given  in  all  the  Synoptics,  as  an  al- 
legorizing interpretation  by  Markj  Holtzmann,  Hand-Comm.  ad  loc,  as 


INTRODUCTORY  11 

only  for  the  sake  of  completing  the  parable-narrative,  in 
order  that  the  one  point  of  comparison  may  be  set  in  clear 
relief.  Who  is  the  rich  man  in  the  parable  of  the  Rich 
Man  and  the  Steward  (Lk.  xvi.  1  sq.')  ?  Some  say,  God ; 
others,  the  Romans ;  still  others,  the  devil ;  and  these  are 
but  a  few  of  the  answers  which  have  been  given.  Who  is 
the  steward  ?  We  find  a  similar  variety  of  answers :  the 
wealthy,  the  Israelites,  sinners,  and  even  Judas  Iscariot. 
The  fact  is  that  it  makes  no  difference  who  the  rich  man 
is,  or  who  the  steward  is.  The  point  of  the  parable  does 
not  depend  upon  finding  a  counterpart  for  these  persons. 
Whom  does  the  servant  who  owed  ten  thousand  talents 
represent?  Who  is  the  merchant  who  sought  goodly 
pearls?  Who  the  woman  who  puts  the  leaven  in  the 
meal,  or  the  one  who  sweeps  the  house  in  search  of  the 
lost  piece  of  money  ?  No  answers  are  to  be  sought  to 
such  questions.  The  meaning  hinges  on  the  action,  not 
on  the  personnel,  of  these  parables.  The  persons  intro- 
duced are  merely  necessary  as  instruments  to  represent 
the  significant  act  or  event,  and  have,  in  themselves,  no 
significance  whatever.^ 

It  is  necessary  now  to  illustrate,  in  some  important 
points,  that  popular  Jewish  theology  which  forms  the 
background  and  presupposition  of  so  much  of  Jesus'  teach- 
ing. We  will  notice,  first,  the  Jewish  idea  of  God.  The 
idea  of  God's  exaltation  above  the  world  was  carried  so  far 
by  the  Jews  of  Jesus'  time  that  he  was  almost  separated 
from  the  world.  God  was  chiefly  thought  of  as  a  judge 
or  governor.  His  relations  with  men  were  conceived  of 
in  a  legal,  rather  than  in  a  vital,  way.  God  was  an  ac- 
countant who  exactly  credited  all  good  deeds,  and,  with 
equal  exactness,  estimated  and  punished  all  transgressions 

a  traditional  form  which  the  explanation  had  taken  in  the  teaching  of 
the  community.  Most  interpreters  have  not  hesitated,  in  spite  of  the 
absence  of  a  formal  and  precise  congruity  in  the  explanation,  to  ascribe 
it  to  Jesus  himself.  Wendt,  Teaching,  I.  125,  attributes  this  interpreta- 
tion to  Jesus,  although  he  thinks  it  has  been  displaced  from  its  original 
connection.     See  Lehre  Jesu,  p.  30  sq. 

1  In  this  connection  I  would  refer  to  the  exhaustive  study  of  the  para- 
bolic teaching  of  Jesus  in  Jiilicher's  Gleichnisreden  Jesu.  % 


12  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

of  his  law.  It  will  readily  be  seen  how  the  extreme  de- 
velopment of  this  idea  would  tend  to  exclude  the  truth  of 
God's  grace  from  the  minds  of  men,  for  the  very  idea  of 
God's  grace  is  that  he  treats  men  better  than  they  deserve. 

This  conception  of  God  exerted  a  most  potent  influence 
on  practical  religion.  The  God  who  was  far  away  in  the 
heavens  had  made  a  revelation  of  his  will  in  the  laws  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  religion  consisted,  to 
the  mind  of  the  Jew,  in  strict  obedience  to  all  the  require- 
ments of  this  legal  system.  The  main  emphasis  was,  ac- 
cordingly, laid  on  the  externals  of  religion  as  means  of 
pleasing  God  and  winning  his  favor. 

There  were,  however,  important  elements  of  truth  in 
the  popular  Jewish  idea  of  God.  The  transcendence  of 
God  —  his  independence  of  the  world  and  superiority  to 
it  —  was  strongly  emphasized,  but  the  complementary 
truth  of  God's  constant  presence  in  the  world  was  corre- 
spondingly obscured.  And  with  this  transcendence  were 
associated  ideas  of  arbitrariness,  legal  strictness  and  harsh- 
ness, rather  than  ideas  of  moral  excellence  or  love.  So 
perverted  an  idea  of  God's  nature  and  relations  to  the 
world  could  only  lead  to  superficial  conceptions  of  his 
will  and  requirements.  The  allusions  which  Jesus  made 
to  the  religious  ideas  of  the  Pharisees  show  what  popular 
religion  had  become.  It  was  a  round  of  ceremonies  and 
observances  most  of  which  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
state  of  the  heart  and  life  —  a  tithing  of  mint,  anise,  and 
cummin,  while  judgment  and  the  love  of  God  were  for- 
gotten. 

We  are  thus  led  to  the  consideration  of  the  current  idea 
of  righteousness  among  the  Jews  in  contrast  to  that  which 
Jesus  presents.  Their  idea  of  righteousness  grew  out  of 
their  conception  of  God  and  of  his  revelation.  It  con- 
sisted in  obedience  to  commandments,  and  these  com- 
mandments were  looked  at  in  quite  an  external  way. 
The  rich  young  ruler  who  came  to  Jesus  asking  what  he 
should  do  to  inherit  eternal  life  (Mk.  x.  17  sq.}  is  a  con- 
crete illustration  of  the  view  which  the  Jews  took  of  the 
coijimandments.     He  said  that  he  had  kept  them  all.     He 


INTRODUCTORY  13 

considered  that  to  refrain  from  doing  such  evil  deeds  as 
stealing,  lying,  sabbath-breaking,  and  the  like,  which  the 
commandments  forbade,  was  to  keep  the  commandments 
perfectly.  Only  a  superficial  conception  of  the  import 
and  bearing  of  the  commandments  could  underlie  his  claim 
that  he  had  kept  them  all  from  his  youth.  The  same 
faulty  notion  of  the  real  moral  requirements  of  the  law 
lay  at  the  root  of  the  pride  and  self -righteousness  of  the 
Pharisees.  They  thought  themselves  righteous  only  be- 
cause they  measured  themselves  by  an  imperfect  standard. 

It  would  not  be  correct  to  suppose  that  all  the  Jews 
believed  themselves  to  have  kept  the  law  perfectly.  On 
the  contrary,  they  invented  various  devices  by  which  they 
thought  they  could  make  good  their  personal  deficiencies. 
Specially  great  sufferings  and  meritorious  works,  such  as 
almsgiving,  were  thought  to  have  an  atoning  efficacy. 
The  extraordinary  merits  of  one's  ancestors  or  friends 
might  avail  to  supply  defects  in  obedience. ^ 

One  of  two  results  was  quite  sure  to  flow  from  this 
externalism  in  religion,  either  of  which  would  be  destruc- 
tive of  a  healthy  religious  life.  On  the  one  hand,  if  one 
supposed  himself  to  have  done  all  that  was  required,  he 
would  easily  fall  a  prey  to  spiritual  pride,  for  had  not  he 
achieved  this  lofty  height  of  goodness  by  his  own  exer- 
tions ?  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  man  felt  that  he  had 
failed  to  do  the  divine  will  and  to  win  acceptance  with 
God,  he  would  naturally  become  hopeless  and  despondent. 
We  accordingly  find  that  the  religious  life  of  the  Jewish 
people,  to  a  great  extent,  oscillated  between  self -righteous- 
ness and  despair.  The  former  of  these  tendencies  is  illus- 
trated by  the  hypocrisy  and  self-righteousness  which  were 
the  common  characteristics  of  the  Pharisees  ;  the  latter 
by  the  gloom  and  despair  of  a  sincere  religious  mind  in 
the  pre-Christian  experience  of  the  apostle  Paul  which  is 
reflected  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans. 

Now  when  Jesus  came,  he  presented  a  very  different  idea 
of  the  way  in  which  men  are  to  find  acceptance  with  God. 
He  taught  that  trust  or  faith  was    what   God   required. 

1  Qf.  Weber,  JMische  Theologie  (1897),  §  63. 


14  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

This  teaching  opens  a  way  of  salvation  on  which  any  one, 
however  weak  and  sinful,  may  enter.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  climb  up  into  God's  favor  by  meritorious  works ;  nor  is 
it  possible,  since  the  power  of  sin  is  so  great  in  unrenewed 
human  nature.  In  substituting  faith  for  works  Jesus  gave 
quite  a  new  character  to  religion.  He  opened  the  way  to 
real  repose  of  soul  because  in  faith  men  do  not  rest  upon 
their  own  achievements,  but  in  God's  mercy.  They  have 
a  secure  ground  of  hope  in  the  goodness  of  God.  But  this 
faith  is  not  a  mere  passive  principle ;  it  involves  love  and 
obedience.  Real  trust  in  God  implies  living  fellowship 
with  him.  Thus  faith  sets  man  in  his  true  relation  to  God 
because  it  both  opens  his  life  to  the  divine  grace  and  also 
calls  forth  his  own  best  aspiration  and  effort  after  likeness 
to  God.  Christ's  teaching,  therefore,  replaces  self-righteous- 
ness by  humility,  and  substitutes  confidence  for  despair. 
Its  whole  idea  is  that  of  a  vital,  loving  relation  with 
God. 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  presents  a  great  contrast  to  the 
Jewish  ideas  of  his  time  in  regard  to  the  person  and  work 
of  the  Messiah.  The  popular  Messianic  idea  had  been 
formed  from  those  prophecies  which  represented  the  Mes- 
siah as  a  Prince  or  King.  These  representations  were 
taken  in  a  political  sense.  The  Messiah  was  to  be  another 
David  who  should  restore  the  Jewish  monarchy  to  power 
and  glory,  subdue  hostile  nations,  and  rule  the  conquered 
world  in  unsurpassed  majesty.  When,  therefore,  Jesus 
appeared,  claiming  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  yet  did  nothing 
which  the  Jews  expected  the  Messiah  to  do,  it  is  not 
strange  that  they  rejected  his  claim.  And  when  he  began 
to  teach  that  he  must  suffer  death,  his  contemporaries  were 
more  than  ever  offended  at  his  claim  to  be  the  Messiah. 
Even  his  disciples  found  it  hard  to  overcome  their  Jewish 
prejudices  respecting  Messiah's  person  so  far  as  to  see 
how  their  Master  could  be  destined  to  suffer  death.  "  Be 
it  far  from  thee.  Lord ;  this  shall  never  be  unto  thee " 
(Mt.  xvi.  22),  exclaimed  Peter  when  Jesus  said  that  he 
must  suffer  many  things,  and  be  put  to  death,  and  in  so 
doing  he  doubtless  voiced  the  general  feeling. 


INTRODUCTORY  15 

The  doctrine  of  a  suffering  Messiah  was  not  current  in' 
pre-Christian  Judaism.^  The  dolores  Messice  of  which 
Jewish  writers  speak  are  not  the  Messiah's  personal  suffer- 
ings, but  calamities  which,  it  was  believed,  would  come 
upon  Israel  and  the  world  previous  to,  and  in  connection 
with,  Messiah's  coming.  The  Old  Testament  passages 
which  describe  the  suffering  Servant  of  Jehovah,  such  as 
Isa.  liii.,  were  not  applied  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah  until 
Christian  times.  The  Jewish  Messianic  ideal  at  the  time 
when  Jesus  appeared  was  too  much  associated  with 
thoughts  of  earthly  power  and  glory  to  permit  of  recon- 
ciliation with  the  notion  that  the  Messiah  should  die  an 
ignominious  death.  The  ideas  of  Jesus,  therefore,  stood 
in  sharp  contrast  with  the  popular  expectations  of  the  Jews 
of  his  time  respecting  Messiah's  work  and  kingdom. 

The  Jews  of  a  later  period  believed  that  there  was  to  be 
a  preparatory  Messiah,  the  son  of  Joseph,  who  was  to  die 
as  a  warrior  in  defending  the  nation.  He  was  not  con- 
ceived of  as  preeminently  a  sufferer,  nor  was  his  death 
regarded  as  atoning.  He  was  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
victorious  Messiah,  the  son  of  David.  Preparatory  suffer- 
ings of  a  sympathetic  and  disciplinary  nature  were  some- 
times attributed  to  him  during  the  time  preceding  his 
entrance  upon  his  Messianic  vocation.^ 

An  inevitable  result  of  the  ideas  of  salvation,  righteous- 
ness, and  the  kingdom  of  God  which  we  have  noticed,  was 
that  the  Jews  regarded  themselves  as  the  special  favorites 
of  heaven.  To  them,  as  they  thought,  God  had  given  his 
only  revelation,  and  to  them  he  had  restricted  his  saving 
mercy.  The  Old  Testament  had  presented  the  idea  that 
God  had  bestowed  peculiar  privileges  upon  the  Jews  in 
order  that  they  might  be  the  bearers  of  true  religion  to  the 
world.     They,  on  the  other  hand,  considered  their  privi- 

1  Cf.  Stanton,  Tlie  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Messiah,  pp.  122,  123; 
Schlirer,  Jeioish  People,  Div.  II.  §  29.  12. 

2  See  Dalman,  Der  leidende  und  der  sterhende  3Iessias  der  Si/nagoge, 
who  has  shown  that  the  dying  Messiah,  hen  Joseph,  and  the  suffering 
Messiah,  hen  David,  must  be  kept  entirely  distinct.  Cf.  Weber,  Judische 
TJieologie,  §  79.  The  contrary  view  is  represented  by  Wtinsche,  Die 
Leiden  der  Messias. 


16  THE  SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

leges  as  destined  for  themselves  alone.  The  favors  of 
heaven  should  stop  with  them  and  be  their  exclusive  pos- 
session. This  attitude  of  mind  involved  the  great  per- 
version of  Israel's  history.  By  failing  to  receive  Christ 
and  his  world-wide  conception  of  salvation,  they  broke 
with  the  sublime  purpose  of  God  in  their  own  history,  and 
failed  to  attain  the  true  goal  of  their  existence  as  the 
theocratic  people. 

These  illustrations  of  Jewish  ideas  will  serve  to  show 
how  uncongenial  to  the  spiritual  truth  of  Jesus  was  the 
soil  in  which  he  must  plant  it.  To  the  thought  of  his 
age  God  was  afar  off,  his  service  was  a  round  of  rites  and 
observances,  righteousness  was  an  external,  and  largely  a 
non-moral,  affair,  and  the  great  hope  of  the  nation  was  to 
subdue,  by  divine  intervention,  the  surrounding  nations 
and  to  obtain  supremacy  over  the  world.  With  all  these 
ideas  and  hopes  the  teachings  of  Jesus  came  into  the 
sharpest  collision.  He  aimed  to  show  men  that  God  was 
near  to  them  and  that  they  could  live  in  fellowship  with 
him.  He  taught  that  all  outward  rites  were  valueless  in 
themselves  and  that  God  cared  most  about  the  state  of  the 
heart.  For  him  righteousness  consisted  in  Godlikeness; 
that  is,  in  love,  service,  and  helpfulness. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   GOSPEL  AND   THE   LAW 

In  his  teaching  Jesus  took  his  stand,  as  we  have  seen, 
upon  the  Old  Testament.  He  did  not  aim  to  introduce  a 
wholly  new  religion.     He  clearly  foresaw  that  some  of  his 

'"^^isciples  would  suppose  that  it  was  his  purpose  to  break 
with  the  Old  Testament  system,  and  he  warned  them 
against  this  serious  mistake  by  telling  them  that  any  of 
them  who  should  feel  themselves  free  to  break  the  least 
commandment  of  the  Old  Testament  law,  and  should  teach 
others  accbfdihgly,  should  be  called  the  least  in  the  King- 
dom of  God  (Mt.  V.  19).  His  constant  manner  of  speak- 
ing in  regard  to  the  Jewish  religion  and  Scriptures  shows 
the  reverence  in  which  he  held  them.^ 

There  is  in  one  of  his  parables  a  significant  expression  in 
regard  to  the  gradual  progress  of  his  truth  in  the  world : 
"  First  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  after  that  the  full  corn  in 
the  ear"  (Mk.  iv.  28).  This  statement  might  be  fitly 
applied  to  the  whole  process  of  revelation  ,pf  which  the 
Old  Testament  represents  the  earlier  stages.  It  would  as 
truly  describe  Jesus'  idea  of  this  process  as  it  does  the 
growth  to  which  he  immediately  applied  it.  The  Old 
Testament  represents  the  first  steps  in  a  great  course  of 
revelation  and  redemption  which  reaches  its  consummation 

"mTChrist  himself. 

While,  therefore,  Jesus  builds  upon  the  Jewish  religious 
system,  he  also  builds  far  above  and  beyond  it.     While 

1  On  this  subject  I  would  refer  the  reader  to  the  following  discussions  : 
R.  Mackintosh,  Christ  and  the  Jeunsh  Law,  1886 ;  E.  Schtlrer,  Die 
Predigt  Jesu  Christi  in  ihrem  Verhdltniss  ziim  alten  Testament  und  zum 
Judenthum,  1882 ;  W.  Bousset,  Jesu  Predigt  in  ihrem  Gegensatz  zum 
Judenthum,  1892 ;  L.  Jacob,  Jesu  Stellung  zum  mosaischen  Gesetz,  1893. 
0  17 


18  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF    JESUS 

salvation,  historically  considered,  is  from  the  Jews,  it  is 
none  the  less  necessary  that  the  Jewish  religion  should  be 
greatly  elevated  and  enriched.  The  actual  religion  of  the 
people,  though  embodying  essential  and  permanent  ele- 
ments of  true  religion,  is  not  adequate  to  the  needs  of  the 
world;  it  must  be  further  developed,  supplemented,  and 
completed  at  many  points  before  it  can  become  the  univer- 
sal, the  absolute  religion. 

There  were  imperfections  in  the  Jewish  religion  which 
were  incidental  to  its  character  and  purpose.  It  was  in  its 
very  nature  provisional  and  preparatory.  It  was  adapted 
to  an  early  and  rude  stage  of  human  development.  A  con- 
venient illustration  is  found  in  the  principle  of  retaliation 
which,  within  certain  limits,  the  Old  Testament  sanctioned. 
"Ye  have  heard,"  said  Jesus,  "that  it  was  said,  An  eye  for 
an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth :  but  I  say  unto  you.  Resist 
not  him  that  is  evil,"  etc.  (Mt.  v.  38,  39).  Another  ex- 
ample is  found  in  his  conversation  with  the  Pharisees 
when  they  asked  him  why,  if  a  man  and  wife  became  one 
in  marriage,  Moses  commanded  to  give  a  bill  of  divorce- 
ment. Jesus  answered,  "  Moses  for  your  hardness  of  heart 
suffered  you  to  put  away  your  wives :  but  from  the  begin- 
ning it  hath  not  been  so.  And  I  say  unto  you,"  etc. 
(Mt.  xix.  8). 

Jesus,  in  effect,  undermined  the  Jewish  law  of  clean  and 
unclean  by  setting  forth  the  principle  that  it  is  not  what 
enters  into  a  man  which  defiles  him,  but  that  it  is  that 
which  proceeds  out  of  him,  that  is,  from  his  heart,  which 
defiles  him  (Mk.  vii.  15).  The  Levitical  system  of  sacri- 
fices would  not  long  survive  among  those  who  appreciated 
the  force  of  the  principle  that  "  to  love  God  with  all  the 
heart,  and  with  all  the  understanding,  and  with  all  the 
strength,  and  to  love  his  neighbor  as  himself,  is  much 
more  than  all  whole  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices " 
(Mk.  xii.  33).  It  is  obvious,  then,  that  the  actual  effect 
of  the  Gospel  in  doing  away  with  the  Jewish  sacrificial  and 
ceremonial  system  was  a  natural  and  logical  result  of  the 
principles  which  Jesus  laid  down,  and  may  be  said  to  have 
been  contemplated  by  him. 


THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE    LAW  19 

But  the  question  now  arises,  Did  Jesus  intend  to  abro- 
gate the  whole  Old  Testament  religious  system,  and,  if  so, 
by  what  means?  This  question  also  involves  another.  If 
he  did  do  away  with  this  system,  how  is  the  fact  to  be 
reconciled  with  his  frequent  assertion  of  its  divineness? 
The  most  important  passage,  in  its  bearing  on  these  prob- 
lems, is  Mt.  V.  17 :  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy 
the  law  or  the  prophets:  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfil."  This  passage  must  be  read  in  the  light  of  the 
explanations  and  applications  which  follow  it.  Jesus  pro- 
ceeds to  say  that  not  a  jot  or  tittle  shall  pass  away  from 
the  law,  —  a  statement  which,  if  read  by  itself,  would  seem 
to  indicate  the  perpetual  validity  of  the  whole  Old  Testa- 
ment system,  ritual,  sacrifices,  and  all.  But  to  the  state- 
ment in  question  he  immediately  adds :  "  till  all  things  be 
fulfilled,  or  accomplished."  He  does  not,  therefore,  say 
that  no  part  of  this  system  shall  ever  pass  away  (as  it  has 
done,  and  that,  too,  in  consequence  of  his  own  teaching), 
but  only  that  no  part  of  it  shall  escape  the  process  of  ful- 
filment ;  that  it  shall  not  pass  away  till,  having  served  its 
providential  purpose,  it  is  fulfilled  in  the  gospel.  What, 
njQw,  is  .this  fulfilment  which  is  to  be  accomplished  for  the 
whole  laWf  even  for  its  least  portions  ? 

This  question  is  not  to  be  answered  in  a  single  sentence 
or  definition.  The  fulfilment  of  the  old  system^  by  the 
new  is  a  great  historic  process,  the  adequate  understand- 
ing of  which  requires  a  careful  study  of  the  whole  New 
Testament.  Its  salient  features,  however,  may  be  briefly 
indicated.  Jesus  fulfils  the  Old  Testament  system  by 
rounding  out  into  ideal  completeness  what  is  incomplete 
in  that  system.  In  this  process  of  fulfilment,  all  that  is 
imperfect,  provisional,  temporary,  or,  for  any  reason,  need- 
less to  the  perfect  religion,  falls  away  of  its  own  accord, 
and  all  that  is  essential  and  permanent  is  conserved  and 
embodied  in  Christianity.  Some  of  the  elements  of  this 
fulfilment  are  as  follows  : 

(1)  Jesus  fulfils  the  law  perfectly  in  his  own  personal 
life.  The  character  of  Jesus  was  the  realization  of  the 
ideal  which  the  law  contemplated.      He  was  a  perfectly 


20  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

righteous  person,  and  it  was  righteousness  which  the  law 
demanded  and  aimed  to  secure.  But  it  is  not  merely  or 
mainly  the  personal  fulfilment  of  the  law's  ideal  to  which 
Jesus  refers  in  saying  that  he  came  to  fulfil  the  law. 

(2)  Jesus  fulfilled  the  law  in  his  teaching  by  setting 
forth  therein  the  absolute  truths  of  religion  and  the  uni- 
versal principles  of  goodness.  This  point  may  best  be 
illustrated  from  the  context  of  the  passage  under  review. 
Our  Lord  says  that  the  true  righteousness  must  exceed 
that  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  (y.  20).  Their  righteous- 
ness consisted  in  the  punctilious  observance  of  the  bare 
letter  of  the  law,  quite  to  the  neglect  of  its  spirit.  Jesus 
then  proceeds  to  show  the  difference  between  such  exter- 
nal, superficial  righteousness  and  that  which  corresponds 
to  the  law's  true  ideal.  He  says  (y.  21  sq.')  :  You  have  in 
the  Old  Testament  the  commandment,  Thou  shalt  not  kill. 
It  is  commonly  supposed  that  to  refrain  from  the  actual, 
overt  act  of  murder  is  to  keep  that  commandment,  but  I 
tell  you  that  he  only  truly  keeps  it  who  refrains  from 
anger  and  hate.  In  the  sight  of  God,  hate  is  the  essence 
of  murder.  He  thus  finds  the  seat  of  all  goodness,  and  of 
all  sin  in  the  heart,  that  is,  in  the  sphere  of  the  motives 
and  the  desires. 

In  like  manner,  he  declares  that  the  essence  of  adultery 
is  in  the  lustful  desire  and  the  impure  look.  He  thus 
makes  righteousness  an  inward  and  moral  affair.  It  de- 
pends upon  the  state  of  the  heart.  This  truth  he  next 
illustrates  by  reference  to  a  more  subtle  distinction  (^vv. 
33-37).  He  cites  the  commandment  which  requires  men 
to  speak  the  truth,  and  to  perform  their  vows  unto  God. 
It  appears  that  under  cover  of  this  second  requirement  the 
Jews  permitted  themselves  to  make  subtle  distinctions 
between  vows  or  oaths  taken  "to  Jehovah,"  and  those 
taken,  for  example,  "  by  the  heaven,"  or  "  by  Jerusalem." 
Oaths  taken  in  Jehovah's  name  were  regarded  as  more 
sacred  and  binding  than  those  not  so  taken,  and  thus  an 
easy  way  was  opened  for  disregarding  the  real  sacredness 
of  vows  and  promises.  Jesus  strikes  at  the  root  of  all 
these  hollow  and  dishonest   distinctions,  and   discounte- 


THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   LAW  21 

nances  altogether  the  use  of  oaths  in  apparent  confir- 
mation of  one's  word.  Such  oaths,  he  says  in  effect,  are 
either  meaningless  or  irreverent.  Let  your  simple  word 
be  enough.  Esteem  that  to  be  as  binding  as  if  you  had 
coupled  your  statement  with  Jehovah's  name.  The  Jews 
had  made  the  commandment  of  truthfulness  an  instrument 
of  untruthfulness ;  Jesus  insists  upon  a  truthful  heart 
which,  to  use  a  modern  phrase,  makes  one's  "word  as 
good  as  his  bond." 

The  illustrations  of  fulfilment  thus  far  given  are  examples 
of  the  way  in  which  Jesus  penetrated  in  his  teaching  to  the 
inner  meaning  of  Old  Testament  precepts  and  exhibited 
their  true  ideal  requirements,  as  against  the  superficial 
application  of  them  which  regarded  them  as  relating  to 
outward  action  only.  Now,  however,  he  takes  an  example 
of  an  Old  Testament  legal  principle  to  which  in  itself  he 
objects :  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said,  An  eye  for  an 
eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth  (Ex.  xxi.  24)  ;  but  I  say  unto 
you.  Resist  not  him  that  is  evil,"  etc.  (^vv.  38,  39).  The 
principle  here  cited  was  a  part  of  the  Mosaic  system.  It 
was  a  law  of  retaliation  which  magistrates  were  to  apply 
under  certain  restrictions  in  the  punishment  of  crimes ;  it 
was  popularly  applied  to  justify  personal,  private  revenge. 
Unwarranted  as  this  application  was,  we  cannot  justly  say 
that  it  was  this  alone  to  which  Jesus  objected.  The  prin- 
ciple which  he  enunciates  is  certainly  opposed  to  retaliation 
itself,  though  not  to  retribution.  The  rule  that  the  wrong- 
doer was  to  suffer  the  same  kind  of  an  injury  which  he  had 
done  to  another  represented  a  rude  kind  of  justice  which 
was  better  than  none ;  but  it  did  not  accord  with  the  spirit 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.^ 

As  a  final  example  of  fulfilment  he  cited  the  command- 
ment: "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor"  (Lev.  xix.  18), 
and  joined  with  it  the  popular  addition  which  was  derived 

1  The  legal  rule  in  question  was  not  merely  a  lex  retributionis,  but  a 
lex  talionis.  All  penal  legislation  proportions  penalty  to  crime,  but  it 
does  not  punish  in  kind ;  much  less  does  it  countenance  the  private 
redress  of  wrongs.  The  teaching  of  Jesus  here  cannot,  therefore,  be  con- 
strued into  a  disapproval  of  civil  penalties  in  general. 


22  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF    JESUS 

by  inference  from  it :  "  and  hate  thine  enemy  "  (Mt.  v.  43). 
Jesus,  on  the  contrary,  set  forth  the  ideal  import  of  the 
commandment  and  illustrated  and  enforced  the  duty  which 
it  enjoins  by  showing  that  the  love  of  God,  which  is  the 
type  of  all  true  love,  is  not  niggardly,  but  large  and  gener- 
ous. He  then  concludes :  "  Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect 
(that  is,  complete  in  love  —  generous,  helpful,  and  forgiv- 
ing), as  your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect"  (Mt.  v.  48). 
Luke's  version  of  this  saying  —  which,  in  the  judgment  of 
many,  is  the  more  original  form  of  it  —  is :  "  Be  ye  merci- 
ful, even  as  your  Father  is  merciful"  (vi.  36).  These 
are  examples  of  the  way  in  which  Jesus  fulfilled  the  law 
in  his  teaching,  both  by  rescuing  its  true  import  from  the 
perversions  and  exaggerations  to  which  the  scribes  had 
subjected  it,  by  recognizing  the  ethical  imperfections  in 
the  law  itself,  and  by  replacing  them  by  absolute  principles 
of  truth  and  right  which  are  universally  applicable. 

(3)  This  fulfilment  preserved  all  that  was  of  permanent 
value  and  validity  for  religion  in  the  Old  Testament 
system.  Jesus  taught  that  this  whole  system,  in  all  its 
parts,  was  involved  in  the  process  of  fulfilment.  He  did 
not  illustrate  in  detail  how  the  fulfilment  applied  to  the 
various  parts  of  the  law.  We  must  ascertain  this  from  the 
nature  of  the  gospel  and  from  the  history  and  teaching 
which  the  New  Testament  records.  Whatever  there  was 
of  moral  or  religious  significance  in  the  various  regulations 
of  the  Old  Testament  cultus  will  be  found  to  have  been 
conserved  in  the  comprehensive  principles  of  Jesus.  He 
fulfils  the  prophets  by  realizing  their  highest  ideals  of 
religion  no  less  than  by  accomplishing  their  predictions. 
The  great  fact  in  this  connection  is  that  Jesus  fulfils  the 
Jewish  history  as  a  whole;  in  him  the  development  of 
revealed  religion  culminates ;  he  is  its  realization  and  its 
goal.  The  aspirations  and  hopes  of  the  nation  had  been 
directed  for  centuries  to  some  great  consummation,  some 
wonderful  expansion  of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  this  Christ 
came  to  accomplish,  but  into  its  realization  the  greater  part 
of  the  Jewish  nation,  through  blindness  and  perversity,  did 
not  enter. 


THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   LAW  23 

(4)  The  process  of  fulfilment  involves  the  passing  away 
of  the  Old  Testament  system  as  such.  As  the  fulfilling  of 
the  blossom  by  the  fruit  involves  the  passing  away  of  the 
former,  so  does  the  new  system  replace  the  old.  This 
view  of  the  matter  is  abundantly  recognized  in  the  teach- 
ing of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles.  He  described  his  truth 
as  new  wine  Avhich  must  not  be  put  into  the  old  bottles 
of  Judaism  (Mt.  ix.  17).  He  said  that  his  gospel  was  not 
merely  a  new  patch  which  was  to  be  sewed  onto  the  old 
garment  of  the  law ;  it  was  rather  a  new  garment  complete 
and  sufficient  in  itself  (Mt.  ix.  16). 

It  is  of  interest  to  observe,  just  here,  that  this  teaching 
is  quite  in  accord  with  what  the  prophets  themselves,  in 
their  highest  inspirations,  had  discerned  and  intimated 
concerning  their  own  religious  system.  They  frequently 
recognize  its  inadequacy  and  temporary  character  and 
predict  that  it  is  to  pass  away  by  being  merged  into  some- 
thing higher.^  What  religion,  besides  Judaism,  ever  pre- 
dicted its  own  abrogation  ?  It  is  one  of  the  most  signifi- 
cant facts  of  prophecy  that  the  loftiest  spirits  in  the 
nation  were  led  to  look  for  the  dawning  of  larger  truth, 
and  for  a  more  complete  form  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

But  when  it  is  said  that  the  Old  Testament  system  is 
abrogated  in  the  new,  it  is  of  capital  importance  to  observe 
that  the  new  replaces  the  old,  not  by  destruction,  but  by 
fulfilment.  The  new  does  not  reject  and  discard  the  old  ; 
it  preserves  and  embodies  it,  just  so  far  as  it  has  elements 
of  permanent  value  for  the  world's  religion.  The  fulfil- 
ment is  therefore,  an  organic  process ;  the  new  comes  out 
of  the  old  by  a  natural  and  orderly  process  of  development. 
In  that  process  what  is  unessential  falls  away  of  its  own 
accord,  while  all  that  is  essential  and  permanently  useful  is 
taken  up  into  Christianity,  more  completely  developed  and 
applied,  and  reinforced  by  higher  motives  on  the  plane  of 
broader  principles.^ 

1  See,  especially,  Jer.  xxxi.  31-34. 

2  This  subject  has  important  practical  bearings  upon  Christian  thought 
and  life,  to  which  a  brief  reference  may  here  be  made.  The  Christian 
world  has  never  very  clearly  perceived  what  was  its  relation  to  the  Old 


24  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

Christ  did  not  fulfil  a  part  of  the  law  merely,  but  the 
whole  of  it.     He  did  not  complete  the  ritual  part  of  the 
Old   Testament   alone,   but  all  its   moral  parts  as   well. 
\  This  is  but  to  say  that  it  was  not  merely  the  ritual  ele- 
!  ment  of  the  law  which  was  imperfect  and  temporary,  but 
I  the  moral  element  also.     Many  a  moral  maxim  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Old  Testament,  as  we  have  seen,  was  below  the 
'  plane  of  Jesus'  ideal  morality.     If  he  fulfils  the  system  in 
all  its  parts,  then   must  the  system  as  such  pass    away. 
And  this  is  the  fact  in  the  case.     On  no  other  supposition 

Testament  religion.  How  discordant  and  inconsistent  have  been  the  pre- 
vailing views  on  this  subject.  Commonly  some  rough  distinction  has 
been  made  between  those  parts  of  the  system  which  were  supposed  to  be 
binding  and  those  from  which  the  Christian  was  believed  to  be  free,  but 
this  distinction  rested  on  no  well-defined  principle.  The  discrimination 
has  ordinarily  been  perfectly  arbitrary,  having  no  better  grounds  than 
those  of  practical  convenience.  No  Christians,  in  our  time,  hold  that 
they  must  observe  the  Old  Testament  rules  respecting  meats  and  drinks, 
or  suppose  that  they  are  bound  to  observe  the  sacrificial  system.  But 
this  was  not  always  so.  In  the  apostolic  Church  there  was  a  large  party 
who  held  that  it  was  necessary  for  the  Christian  even  to  keep  the  whole 
law  of  Moses  in  order  to  be  saved.  (See,  e.g.,  Acts  xv.  1).  Their  view 
was  that  Christianity  was  a  kind  of  addition  or  appendix  to  Judaism  and 
that  their  former  religion,  in  all  its  particulars,  was  in  full  force  and  per- 
petually binding.  Paul  had  his  sharpest  conflicts  with  this  party.  He 
showed  that  they  were  quite  consistent,  though  consistently  wrong.  In 
insisting  on  the  necessity  of  a  continued  observance  of  circumcision,  they 
logically  committed  themselves  to  the  keeping  of  the  whole  law.  But  it 
was  impossible  that  Christians  should  long  continue  to  observe  the  whole 
Mosaic  ritual,  and  the  effort  to  do  so  was  less  and  less  consistently  made. 
In  modern  times  we  not  infrequently  find  Christians  who  have  con- 
scientiously placed  themselves  under  some  part  of  the  old  system,  believ- 
ing that,  for  some  special  reason,  it  is  binding  upon  them,  while  from  the 
observance  of  its  other  regulations  they  readily  excuse  themselves.  It 
may  be  the  law  of  tithes,  which  is  regarded  as  still  binding,  or  the  regula- 
tions relating  to  marriage  or  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath  —  which  are  considered 
to  be  of  perpetual  obligation.  But  the  question  arises  :  On  what  principle 
is  one  requirement  of  the  system  observed  while  the  others  are  neglected  ? 
Did  Jesus  specify  those  which  were  temporary  and  those  which  were  per- 
petually binding  ?  If  he  did  not,  how  are  they  to  be  distinguished  ?  It 
is  common  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  ceremonial  and  the  moral 
parts  of  the  law,  and  to  suppose  that,  while  the  former  are  done  av/ay,  the 
latter  are  still  binding  upon  Christians.     But  this  distinction  is  recognized 

•  neither  in  the  Old  Testament  nor  in  the  New  ;  it  is  a  modern  division  of 
the  law  whijeh  it  is  quite  convenient  and  natural  for  us  to  make,  but  one 

.    of  which  a  quite  unwarrantable  use  is  commonly  made. 


THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   LAW  25 

can  the  New  Testament  references  to  the  subject  be  natur- 
ally explained ;  on  no  other  view  can  a  clear  definition  be 
given  of  the  relation  of  the  two  Testaments. 

The  conclusion,  then,  to  which  we  are  led  is,  that  the 
whole  Old  Testament  system,  in  all  its  parts,  was  taken 
up  into  the  process  of  fulfilment  and  that  all  its  elements 
of  permanent  value  and  validity  have  been  made  part  and 
parcel  of  the  gospel.  To  the  old  system  as  such  we  have 
no  need  to  go  back,  because  the  gospel  is  its  completion, 
and  we  have  no  occasion  to  supplement  Christianity  by 
additions  from  Judaism.  But  the  Old  Testament  has  not 
thereby  been  destroyed^  but  fulfilled.  On  this  distinction 
between  destruction  and  fulfilment  turns  the  true  solution 
of  the  question  under  consideration.  The  fulfilment  is,  by 
its  very  nature,  a  conserving  process;  it  rejects  nothing 
which  it  can  use,  but  embodies  it  in  its  perfect  result. 
All  the  essentials  of  the  Old  Testament  are  preserved  in 
the  New,  and  it  is  as  parts  of  the  gospel  of  Christ  that 
they  are  binding  upon  the  Christian  man.  He  is  not  under 
the  Old  Testament  system,  or,  to  state  the  case  more  fully, 
he  is  under  only  so  much  of  it  as  has  been  taken  up  and 
incorporated  into  Christianity,  and  he  is  under  that  because 
it  is  a  part  of  Christianity,  not  because  it  is  a  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  religion.  If  it  is  asked,  Is  not  the  Chris- 
tian under  the  authority  of  the  ten  commandments?  the 
reply  is,  In  their  Old  Testament  form  and  as  part  of  that 
system,  he  is  not.  The  essential  substance  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments consists  of  changeless  principles  of  righteous- 
ness, and  is  therefore  a  part  of  Christianit}^ ;  in  that  sense 
the  Christian  is  under  the  commandments,  and  in  no  other. 
The  duty  to  obey  parents,  for  example,  is  as  urgently  in- 
culcated in  the  gospel  as  in  the  commandments,  and  is,  of 
course,  perpetually  binding,  but  the  reason  by  which  it  is 
enforced  in  the  Old  Testament  —  that  by  obedience  one 
may  win  a  long  residence  in  the  land  of  Canaan  —  is  not 
applicable  to  us. 

The  truth  which  we  are  considering,  stated  on  its  positive 
side,  is  that  Christianity  is  complete  and  sufficient  in  itself 
jLs^a^uide  to  faith  and  action.     The  whole  philosophy  of 


26  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

the  subject  is  in  that  most  expressive  figure  of  Jesus  to 
which  we  have  referred:  His  gospel  is  not  a  patch  to  be 
sewed  on  the  old  garment  of  Judaism,  but  a  wholly  new 
garment.  We  might  carry  out  the  figure  a  step  further  by 
saying  —  quite  in  harmony  with  his  thought  —  that  into 
the  texture  of  that  garment  have  been  woven  all  the 
elements  of  Judaism  which  are  adapted  to  become  parts 
of  its  permanent  and  perfect  structure. 

While,  then,  we  are  not  under  the  old  system  at  all,  it 
must  always  have  the  greatest  value  in  helping  us  to 
understand  historically  its  own  fulfilment  in  Christianity. 
To  speak  in  Paul's  language,  the  Old  Testament  is  glori- 
ous, but  not  with  "  the  glory  that  surpasseth  "  (2  Cor.  iii. 
10)  ;  that  is,  it  has  its  true  glory  in  the  fact  that  its  mission 
was  to  prepare  for  and  to  usher  in  a  more  perfect  system. 
It  was  glorious,  not  so  much  in  itself,  as  in  the  great  end 
which  it  contemplated. 

In  this  view  it  will  be  seen  that  the  old  system  could 
well  be  both  temporary  and  divine.  Its  glory  lay  in  the 
very  fact  that  it  was  to  give  itself  up  to  decay  in  order  that 
from  it,  as  from  the  seed,  a  larger  life  might  spring.  Had 
this  truth  been  clearly  seen  by  the  Church  of  the  apostolic 
age,  many  great  controversies  and  alienations  would  have 
been  avoided.  It  was  naturally  hard  for  those  who  liad 
been  reared  and  trained  as  Jews  to  see  the  sufficiency  and 
independence  of  Christianity  and  to  recognize  the  comple- 
mentary truth  that  the  Jewish  religion  had  waxed  old  and 
was  ready  to  vanish  away.  To  this  difficulty  of  transcend- 
ing their  ancestral  religion  and  of  apprehending  the  new- 
ness and  sufficiency  of  the  gospel,  Jesus  refers  in  the 
saying :  "  No  man  having  drunk  old  wine  desireth  new ; 
for  he  saith,  the  old  is  good"  (Ll^.  v.  39).  It  required 
a  vision  to  convince  Peter  of  the  largeness  and  newness  of 
the  gospel,  and  even  then  he  did  not  continue  consistent 
in  his  conviction.  The  whole  dispute  about  circumcision 
which  so  tried  the  soul  of  the  apostle  Paul  would  have 
been  settled  in  an  instant  if  all  could  have  seen  Christ's 
truth  of  fulfilment.  It  was  incapable  of  real  settlement 
except  upon  Paul's  bold  principle  that  the  Christian  is  not 
under  the  law,  either  in  whole  or  in  part. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   KINGDOM  OF   GOD 

"  The  Kingdom  of  God  "  is  one  of  the  phrases  which  we 
most  frequently  hear  on  the  life  of  Jesus.  We  may  there- 
fore believe  that  it  represents  one  of  his  most  fundamental 
and  characteristic  ideas.  According  to  Mark,  his  first 
announcement  of  the  "Gospel  of  God"  consisted  in  his 
saying,  "  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand:  repent  ye,  and  believe  in  the  gospel"  (i.  15). 
Our  purpose  requires  us  to  examine  the  historical  basis  of 
the  conception,  the  development  of  it  by  our  Lord,  and  its 
fitness  to  serve  the  ends  of  his  teaching  and  work.^ 

We  observe  at  the  outset  that  Matthew  usually  employs 
the  phrase,  "the  Kingdom  of  heaven,"  instead  of  "the 
Kingdom  of  God."  Several  difficult  questions  arise  in 
connection  with  the  former  term :  Does  it  mean  the  same 
as  "the  Kingdom  of  God"?  What  is  the  force  of  the 
defining  genitive  "  of  heaven  "  (joiv  ovpavoiv)  ?  Was  this 
title  probably  employed  by  Jesus  himself?  There  is  no 
indication  in  Matthew's  usage  that  the  phrase  "  the  King- 
dom of  heaven  "  bears  any  different  sense  from  its  alterna- 
tive designation.  The  two  are  used  interchangeably  in 
tha.  first  Gospel  (cf.  Mt.  vi.  10,  33;  xii.  28;  xxi.  21,  48). 
It  seems  probable  that  the  genitive  denotes  the  origin  and 
the  consequent  attributes  of  the  Kingdom.^     In  contrast 

1  Several  monographs  on  the  subject  have  appeared  within  recent 
years,  such  as:  E.  Issel,  Die  Lehre  vom  Beiche  Gottes  im  neuen  Testa- 
ment, 1891  ;  O.  Schmoller,  Die  Lehre  vom  Beiche  Gottes  in  den  Schriften 
des  neuen  Testaments,  1891 ;  J.  Weiss,  Die  Predigt  Christi  vom  Beiche 
Gottes,  1892  ;  A.  Titius,  Jesu  Lehre  vom  Beiche  Gottes,  1896  ;  W.  Ltit- 
gert,  Das  Beich  Gottes  nach  den  synoptischen  Evangelien,  1895. 

2  So  Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theol.  1.  42  (Bk.  I.  ch.  ii.  §  1).  Wendt, 
Teaching  of  Jesus,  I.  371  (orig.  p.  299),  following  Schurer,  maintains 

27 


28        THE  SYNOPTIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

(to  earthly  kingdoms,  this  Kingdom  is  heavenly  in  origin) 
\and  character ;  it  is  governed  by  heavenly,  that  is,  spiritual 
and  eternal,  laws.^  It  emanates  from  heaven,  and  heaven 
is  the  seat  of  the  authority  which  obtains  within  it.  Its 
lawjis  the  will  of  God.  It  exists  among  men  in  proportion 
as  they  live  in  conformity  with  the  divine  will,  and  realize 
in  personal  and  social  life  the  purposes  of  God's  holy  love. 
The  Kingdom  of  God  on  earth  is  therefore  the  domain  in 
which  God's  holy  will  is  done  in  and  among  men. 

We  must  now  consider  its  relation  to  Old  Testament 
ideas.  Jewish  religious  thought  was  penetrated  with  the 
idea  of  a  coming  King  and  Kingdom.  Oat  of  Zion  the 
law  was  to  go  forth  (Is.  ii.  3)  ;  the  herald  of  good  tidings 
should  declare,  Thy  God  reigneth  (Hi.  7)  ;  a  great  suc- 
cessor of  David  should  sit  upon  the  throne  of  Israel  (Jer. 
xxiii.  5  ;  xxxiii.  17).  In  later  prophecies,  under  the  stress 
of  foreign  oppression,  the  idea  of  a  coming  Kingdom  of 
God  which  should  overthrow  all  opposing  powers  came 
out  in  even  stronger  relief:  "In  the  days  of  those  kings 

that  " heaven"  is  here  a  metonymy  for  "  God."  The  Rabbinical  use  of 
this  periphrasis,  to  which  Wendt  appeals,  cannot  establish  this  view  in 
the  face  of  the  fact  that  our  sources  never  represent  Jesus  as  using 
"heaven"  as  a  name  for  God  {per  contra,  see  Mt.  v.  34).  Weiss 
understands  by  "Kingdom  of  heaven,"  the  Kingdom  to  be  perfected  in 
heaven,  in  contrast  to  the  Jewish  theocracy.     Bihl.  Tlieol,  §  138,  c.  8. 

1  Beyschlag,  I.  42  (Bk.  I.  ch.  ii.  §  1),  holds  that  it  was  the  title  which 
Jesus  preferred  to  use.  Wendt,  Teaching,  I.  371  (orig.  p.  299),  thinks 
that  Jesus  did  not  use  the  phrase,  because  Luke,  even  where  he  follows 
the  \6yia,  uses  "Kingdom  of  God,"  and  because  the  first  evangelist, 
even  when  incorporating  Mark  into  his  narrative,  employs  "  Kingdom  of 
heaven."  Cf.  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  79.  Weiss,  Bihl.  Theol., 
§  138,  c.  8,  gives  a  wholly  different  reason  for  holding  that  Jesus  did  not 
speak  of  the  "Kingdom  of  heaven."  The  term  was  "selected  by  the  evan- 
gelist, because  with  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  the  hope  of  a  perfecting  of  the 
theocracy  in  Israel  on  earth  vanished."  Bruce,  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  59, 
aptly  points  out  that  while  Jesus'  employment  of  the  phrase  (in  tlie  sense 
which  Weiss  attaches  to  it)  would  be  quite  out  of  the  question  on  Weiss's 
theory  that  Jesus  conceived  of  the  Kingdom  as  consisting  merely  in  the 
realization  of  Jewish  theocratic  hopes,  it  is  quite  competent  to  inquire 
whether  his  use  of  it  is  not  in  itself  quite  as  probable  as  this  theory.  The 
phrase  does  not  seem  to  be  used  in  the  eschatological  sense  which  Weiss 
attaches  to  it.  In  any  case,  the  natural  meaning  of  the  title  does  not 
favor  Weiss's  theory  of  Jesus'  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom. 


THE  KINGDOM   OF   GOD  29 

shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a  Kingdom  which  shall 
never  be  destroyed,  nor  shall  the  sovereignty  thereof  be 
left  to  another  people ;  but  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and 
consume  all  these  kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand  forever  " 
(Dan.  ii.  44).  The  suffering  and  degradation  of  the  nation 
under  foreign  rule  during  the  years  immediately  preceding 
Christ's  appearance  served  to  intensify,  if  they  also  served 
to  secularize,  this  expectation. 

The  prophetic  declarations  concerning  the  coming  King- 
dom are  rooted,  in  turn,  in  the  whole  Old  Testament  con- 
ception of  the  relation  of  God  to  his  people.  The  idea 
of  a  government  of  God  among  men  —  a  "theocracy,"  as 
Josephus  happily  expressed  it  —  was  absolutely  funda- 
mental in  the  life  of  the  Jewish  nation.  It  lay  at  the 
basis  of  the  covenant-relation.  As  God's  "  peculiar  treas- 
ure," Israel  was  to  be  unto  him  "a  Kingdom  of  priests, 
and  an  holy  nation"  (Ex.  xix.  5,  6).  When,  therefore, 
Jesus  spoke  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  he  spoke  the  language 
of  current  religious  thought  in  Judaism.  He  touched  a 
responsive  chord  in  the  heart  of  the  nation.  We  may  find 
just  here  the  motive  of  Jesus  in  employing  the  term,  and 
the  fitness  of  it  for  the  purposes  of  his  teaching. 

It  is  a  priori  probable  from  the  dominance  of  the  idea 
under  consideration  in  Jewish  thought  that  the  phrase 
"  Kingdom  of  God "  was  a  current  expression  in  Israel. 
The  term  is  several  times  employed  in  the  New  Testament 
in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate  that  it  was  in  common  use 
among  the  people  (Mk.  xv.  43;  Lk.  xiv.  15,  xvii.  20). 
The  nation  was  living  in  constant  expectation  of  its 
appearance  (Lk.  xix.  11;  Acts  i.  6).  That  Jesus'  idea 
of  the  Kingdom  was  intended  to  have  some  connection 
with  the  Old  Testament  Messianic  hope  and  with  the 
expectations  current  in  his  time  does  not  admit  of  reason- 
able doubt.  The  point  to  be  determined  is.  How  far 
was  Jesus'  conception  of  the  Kingdom  new?  This  ques- 
tion can  be  satisfactorily  answered  only  after  an  investi- 
gation of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  upon  the  subject.  One 
or  two  general  considerations,  however,  may  here  be  pre- 
sented. 


30  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

/^  The  noblest  minds  in  the  Jewish  nation,  such  as  the 
great  prophets,  conceived  it  to  be  the  destiny  of  Israel 
to  bear  the  knowledge  of  God  which  she  possessed  to  all 
mankind.  The  Messianic  King  was  to  have  universal 
sway.  His  Kingdom  was  to  be  as  wide  as  the  world. 
The  knowledge  of  Jehovah  was  to  fill  the  earth.  Nations 
should  come  to  its  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  its 
rising  (Is.  Ix.  3,  4;  Jer.  xxxi.  34).  But  to  this  splendid 
ideal  the  nation  as  a  whole  did  not  rise,  and  it  sank  farther 
and  farther  away  from  it  as  the  time  drew  near  the  birth 
of  Christ.  The  great  coming  good  was  more  and  more 
conceived  of  as  a  monopoly  of  divine  favor  to  be  enjoyed 
by  Israel  alone,  and  thus  the  Kingdom  or  reign  of  God, 
instead  of  embracing  in  its  idea  and  intent  the  whole 
human  family,  became  narrowed  so  as  to  include  only  the 
lineal  descendants  of  Abraham.  At  the  same  time  the 
idea  of  the  Kingdom  became  more  and  more  worldly,  or 
political.  The  idea  of  power  which,  in  the  prophetic  con- 
ception of  the  Kingdom  had  been  combined  with  that  of 
righteousness,  became  the  dominant  element  in  the  Messi- 
anic hope.  The  Messiah  was  conceived  of  as  a  second 
David,  who  should  reconstitute  the  Jewish  nation  in 
power  and  glory,  throw  off  the  yoke  of  foreign  domina- 
tion, and  trample  Israel's  enemies  in  the  dust.  The  later 
Jewish  literature  is  permeated  with  this  conception  of  the 
Messianic  reign,  and  the  New  Testament  contains  unmis- 
takable traces  of  its  prevalence  at  the  time  of  Christ. 

"^  The  question  now  arises :  Did  Jesus  fall  into  line  with 
these  Jewish  conceptions  or  did  he  rise  high  above  them 
even  as  they  were  cherished  by  the  loftiest  prophetic  minds  ? 
Weiss  has  elaborated  and  defended  the  former  view.^  He 
holds  that  it  was  the  expectation  of  Jesus  to  reconstitute 
the  Jewish  nation  in  freedom,  prosperity,  and  liappiness. 
The  course  of  events,  however,  generally  forced  his  mind 
away  from  the  dream  of  political  independence  and  tem- 
poral well  being  to  the  idea  of  founding  a  sj^iritual  society 
composed  of  such  as  were  possessed  of  certain  qualities  of 
heart. 

1  In  his  various  writings,  but  most  fully  in  his  Life  of  Christ. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD  31 

Now,  while  we  do  not  deny  a  development  in  Jesus'  doc- 
trine of  the  Kingdom,  we  cannot  help  thinking  that  this  is 
a  statement  of  the  case  which  the  facts  do  not  warrant. 
This  theory  does  not  attribute  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  as  great 
a  breadth  and  spirituality  of  view  as  the  prophets  them- 
selves enjoyed.  It  is  derogatory  to  the  originality  of  Jesus. 
We  maintain,  on  the  contrary,  that  he  took  up  the  best 
ideals  of  Jewish  prophecy  and  lifted  them  to  even  grander 
heights.  He  set  aside  the  limitations  of  view  in  which 
the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  had  been  apprehended  in 
Old  Testament  times,  and  gave  that  idea  its  true  univer- 
sality and  spirituality.  The  Kingdom  of  God  v/as  for  him 
something  larger,  because  more  spiritual,  than  the  Jewish 
state  had  ever  been;  something  more  spiritual  than  any 
outward  organization  could  ever  be.  Jesus'  idea  of  the 
Kingdom  was  rooted  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  it  rose 
above  the  limited  conceptions  in  which  the  Old  Testament 
had  presented  the  Messianic  hope  ;  much  more  did  it  rise 
above  the  popular  ideals  and  stand  in  sharp  contrast  to 
them. 

This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  very  way  in  which  Jesus 
appeared  announcing  his  Kingdom.  He  proclaimed  it  as 
^something  new  and  distinctive.  The  time  of  preparation 
for  it  had  passed ;  he  was  now  to  begin  its  establishment 
(Mk.  i.  15).  What  he  says  of  his  truth  in  general  is 
applicable  to  his  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom ;  it  is  new  cloth 
and  must  not  be  stretched  onto  the  old  garment  of  Juda- 
ism ;  it  is  new  wine  and  must  not  be  put  into  old  wine- 
skins (Mk.  ii.  21,  22).  It  was  not  strange  that  the  people 
were  astonished  at  his  teaching  (Mt.  vii.  28,  29 ;  Mk.  i. 
27),  because  there  was  in  it  a  breadth  of  view  and  an  ele- 
vated spirituality  to  which  they  were  wholly  unaccustomed. 
(  But  we  have  still  more  direct  proof  that  Jesus'  idea  of 
the  Kingdom  was  far  removed  from  this  notion  of  a  pros- 
perous political  commonwealth.  The  Gospels  narrate  a 
series  of  incidents  in  which  his  view  comes  out  in  strong- 
est contrast  to  that  conception.  What  else,  indeed,  is  the 
meaning  of  his  temptation  at  the  very  beginning  of  his 
ministry?     Whatever    view    be    taken    of    the   historical 


32  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

cliaracter  of  that  event,  all  our  sources  bear  witness  to  the 
fact  that  on  the  very  threshold  of  his  public  work  Jesus 
^  faced  the  choice  between  the  temporal  and  spiritual  con- 
\  ceptions  of  his  messiahship.  The  popular  demand  for  a 
"wonder-working  leader  who  should  achieve  power  and 
glory  in  the  world  he  promptly  and  decisively  repudiated. 
He  chose  instead  the  method  of  spiritual  leadership  and 
the  way  of  self-sacrifice. 

The  same  idea  of  the  Kingdom  is  clearly  reflected  when, 
being  asked,  who  is  greatest  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  he 
replies  thatliumility  i^  the  test  of  greatness  in  that  King- 
dom (Mt.  xVliTr4)r'  Of  similar  import  is  his  saying  that 
he  who  serves  most  is  greatest  in  his  Kingdom  (Mt.  xx. 
26).  But  even  more  sharply  does  the  contrast  between 
the  political  conception  of  the  Kingdom  and  Jesus'  idea 
appear  when,  being  asked  by  the  Pharisees  when  the 
Kingdom  of  God  should  come,  he  said,  "  The  Kingdom  of 
God  Cometh  not  with  observation :  neither  shall  they  say, 
i  Lo  here  !  or.  There !  for  lo,  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  in  the 
\  midst  of  you"  (Lk.  xvii.  20,  21).  In  view  of  this  con- 
trast we  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  after  the  resurrec- 
tion his  disciples  had  not  entered  sufficiently  into  his 
thought  to  suppose  that  the  expected  Kingdom  had  yet 
been  established.  "  We  hoped  that  it  was  he  which  should 
redeem  Israel ''  (Lk.  xxiv.  21),  they  said,  but  it  is  clear 
that  they  regarded  this  hope  as  disappointed.  To  the 
same  purpose  was  the  question  which  they  put  to  him 
during  the  forty  days :  "  Lord,  dost  thou  at  this  time 
restore  the  Kingdom  to  Israel?"  (Acts  i.  6).  It  is  obvi- 
ous that  by  the  redemption  of  Israel  and  the  restoration  of 
the  Kingdom  to  Israel  they  referred  to  the  reestablishment 
of  the  Jewish  state  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  nation's  hopes 
for  temporal  prosperity  and  victory  over  its  foes.  Jesus' 
whole  teaching  and  conduct  during  his  entire  ministry 
had  not  seemed  to  them,  who  had  constantly  heard  and  ob- 
served him,  to  have  accomplished  anything  in  this  direc- 
tion. From  their  standpoint  he  had  done  nothing  which 
looked  toward  Israel's  redemption.  It  may  not  be  per- 
fectly easy  to  explain  why,  on  the  supposition  that  Jesus' 


THE   KINGDOM   OF    GOD  33 

view  was  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  popular  idea,  his  dis- 
ciples had  not  been  able  to  rise  into  fuller  sympathy  with 
his  conception;  but  it  is  certainly  far  harder  to  explain 
why,  on  the  supposition  that  his  view  resembled  the  popu- 
lar expectation,  the  disciples,  who  still  cherished  the  popu- 
lar idea,  should  have  regarded  his  teaching  and  action  as 
standing  in  sharpest  contrast  to  all  their  long-cherished 
hopes.     No  concjjisian  is  warranted  except  this^  that  the 

i/ teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  his  Kingdom  and  his  method 
of  establishing  it  were  so  wholly  out  of  line  with  the  ambi- 
tions and  expectations  of  the  Jewish  people  that  even  his 
own  disciples  were  ready,  at  the  end  of  his  public  career, 
to  declare  his  anticipated  work  a  failure.  But  this  con- 
clusion may  be  further  tested  by  what  Jesus  directly 
taught  concerning  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom  and  the 
method  of  its  progress. 

Jesus  taught  that  membership  in  the  Kingdom  was  de- 
pendent upon  certain  ethical  and  spiritual  qualities.  The 
^-Kingdom  is  composed  of  those  who  possess  a  certain  kind 
of  j3.haracter.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  an  outward  organi- 
zation whose  members  are  bound  together  by  any  such 
bonds  as  common  ancestry,  language,  self-interest,  or  the 
occupancy  of  a  common  territory.  If  Matthew's  version 
of  the  beatitudes  is  followed,  they  contain  a  forcible  setting 
forth  of  the  spiritual  qualifications  for  membership  in  the 

•^Kingdom.  ^Tlumility,  meekness,  eager  desire  for  right- 
eousness, mercifulness,  purity  of  heart,  and  peacemaking 
are  the  conditions  of  participating  in  the  Kingdom  and 
the  characteristics  of  its  members.'  It  has  been  the  more 
common  view  of  interpreters  that  Matthew's  version  was 
more  original  than  Luke's  (vi.  20  sq.}  which  represents 
Jesus  as  offering  the  blessings  of  the  Kingdom  to  those 
who  are  literally^  rather  than  spiritually,  poor,  hungry,  and 
sorrowing.^    But  if  Luke's  version  is  followed,  the  inward, 

1  So,  for  example,  Tholuck,  Meyer,  and  Weiss.  Meyer  says  :  "Cer- 
tainly Luke  has  the  later  form  of  the  tradition,  which  of  necessity  took 
its  rise  in  consequence  of  the  affliction  of  the  persecuted  Christians,  etc. 
This,  also,  is  especially  true  of  the  denunciations  of  woe,  which  were  stil] 
unknown   to  the  first  evangelist."      Commentary,   ad  loc.  Lk.  vi.   20. 


34  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

spiritual  nature  of  the  Kingdom  is  clearly  implied.  It  can- 
not be  supposed  that  Jesus  teaches  that  the  physically 
poor,  wretched,  and  outcast,  as  such,  compose  his  Kingdom. 
He  must  mean  (according  to  Luke)  that  the  blessings  of 
the  Kingdom  are  a  reward  for  hardships  and  sufferings 
voluntarily  endured.  The  Kingdom  is  a  compensation  for 
distress,  calamity,  and  want  because  it  is  a  spiritual-tiieas- 
ure.  Its  joys  and  comforts  are  an  antidote  for  the  miseries 
of  earth.  In  this  view  of  the  original  import  of  the  beati- 
tudes, even  more  than  in  that  which  Matthew  has  given, 
is  the  Kingdom  presented  as  a  spiritual  good,  a  boon  to  the 
inner  life.  In  either  case,  participation  in  it  must  be  de- 
pendent upon  inner  conditions  or  qualities  of  life.  Form- 
ally different  as  the  beatitudes  are  in  the  two  Gospels,  both 
versions  clearly  imply  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Kingdom. 
One  of  the  most  significant  hints  respecting  the  nature 
of  the  Kingdom  i^  contained  in  the  Lord's  prayer.  Jesus 
taught  his  disciples  to  pray:  "  Thy  Kingdom  come.  Thy 
will  be  done,  as  in  heaven,  so  on  earth"  (Mt.  vi.  10). 
The  second  of  these  petitions  is  an  explanation  and  ampli- 
fication of  the  first.^     The  Kingdom  comes  in  proportion 

Holtzmami,  Wendt,  and  Briggs,  however,  hold  to  the  greater  originality 
of  Luke's  version.  According  to  Wendt,  the  beatitudes  originally  ex- 
pressed, not  the  conditions  of  participating  in  the  salvation  of  the  King- 
dom, but  the  worth  of  this  salvation :  Even  the  poor  are  really  rich  ;  the 
sorrowful  are  really  happy,  if  they  possess  this  heavenly  good.  The  woes 
are  regarded  as  the  reverse  side  of  these  blessings.  Lehre  Jesii,  pp.  53- 
57.  A  similar  view  is  taken  by  Briggs,  who  urges  literary  considerations 
in  favor  of  the  originality  of  Luke,  and  lays  stress  upon  the  voluntariness 
of  the  poverty  and  hardships  which  were  the  condition  of  sharing  in  the 
blessings  of  the  Kingdom.     Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  172,  173. 

1  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  pp.  97,  98,  following  Luke's  version  (xi.  2  sq.) 
of  the  prayer  in  preference  to  Matthew's,  treats  the  words:  "Thy  will 
be  done,"  etc.,  as  an  addition  by  the  first  evangelist.  No  reason  is  given 
for  this  judgment,  and  it  seems  to  involve  an  unwarranted  impoverish- 
ment of  the  prayer.  Weiss  justly  remarks  that  the  first  petition  points  to 
the  preliminary  condition,  the  third  to  the  final  purpose  of  the  coming 
Kingdom,  thus  suggesting  a  logical  sequence  and  completeness  of  thought. 
Moreover,  a  reminiscence  of  the  third  petition  is  found  not  only  in  Mat- 
thew (xxvi.  42),  but  in  Luke  (xxii.  42).  "Luke,"  adds  Weiss,  "has 
omitted  this  petition,  because  if  the  second  one  is  fully  granted,  it  involves 
the  fulfilment  of  the  third  ;  and  that  was  sufficient  for  his  Gentile  readers. 
It  was  not  without  special  purpose,  however,  that  Jesus  added  this  request. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF    GOD  35 

^.asJGrod's  will  is  done  among  men.  The  Kingdom  is  com- 
posed of  all  who  ohe.}^  tlmli_„will.  The  perfect  doing  of 
God's  will  bj  men  wonld  be  the  perfection  of  his  Kingdom 
on  earth.  Although  Jesus  has  nowhere  explicitly  defined 
the  phrase,  Kingdom  of  God,  a  clear  view  of  its  essential 
nature,  as  he  conceived  it,  is  implied  in  these  words.  They 
justify  the  conclusion  that  by  the  Kingdom  of  God  Jesus 
meant  "  thej^ei^i  of  divine  love  exercised  by  God  in  his 
grace  overliunian  hearts  believing  in  his  love,  and  con- 
strained thereby  to  yield  him  grateful  affection  and  devoted 
service.''  ^ 

Another  prominent  idea  of  Jesus  respecting  the  King- 

y  dom  is  that  it  is  a  growing  affair.  Its  coming  is  a  long 
historical  process.  Various  aspects  of  this  progress  of  the 
Kingdom  in  the  world  are  set  forth  in  a  group  of  parables 
which  are  designed  to  illustrate  its  nature.  One  of  the 
most  significant  of  these  is  preserved  by  Mark  alone 
(iv.  26-29).  It  likens  the  growth  of  the  Kingdom  to  the 
slow  and  mysterious  development  of  seed-grain  when  it  is 
sown  in  the  earth.  It  pictures  the  husbandman  as  sowing 
the  seed  and  tlien  waiting  while  Nature  does  her  work. 
He  sleeps  and  rises  awaiting  the  movement  of  the  divinely 
appointed  process,  and  powerless  to  understand  the  mys- 
tery of  growth.  Meantime,  the  natural  processes  are  going 
forward.  "  The  earth  bringeth  forth  fruit  of  herself ;  first 
the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear." 
"  Sa_is_the_Ki4igdom  of  God."     It  camas_ slowly,  silently, 

V  mj^steriously.  Divine  forces  are  operating  to  carry  for- 
ward its  development.  In  a  rudimentary  form  the  King- 
dom of  God  had  always  been  in  the  world ;  in  an  important 
sense  it  came  when  Christ  came  and  entered  upon  his 
historic  mission ;  but  in  a  still  wider  view  it  keeps  on 
coming  through  all  the   courses  of   human  history,  and 

The  perfect  realization  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  will  undoubtedly  bring 
with  it  the  fulness  of  all  promised  blessings,  but  the  desires  of  the  disciples 
were  still  preponderatingly  directed  to  the  external  welfare  of  the  nation." 
Life  of  Christ,  II.  350  (Bk.  IV.  ch.  xi.);  cf.  Das  MatthCiusevanyelmm, 
p.  184. 

1  Bruce,  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  46. 


36  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

reaches  its  culmination  only  in  the  completion  of  the  work 
of  redemption. 

Of  the  other  parables  which  are  based  upon  the  analogy 
between  spiritual  and  natural  growth  (Mt.  xiii.)  that  of 
the  Sower  is  designed  to  depict  the  reception  with  which 
his  truth  meets  from  various  classes  of  hearers  ;  that  of  the 
Mustard-seed  describes  the  great  results  which  flow  from 
small  beginnings  —  the  extension  of  the  Kingdom,  while 
the  parable  of  the  Leaven  depicts  the  tendency  of  the  King- 
dom to  permeate  society  —  the  intensive  development  of 
the  spiritual  life  in  humanity. 

The  incomparable  value^^of  the  Kingdom,  justifying  the 
greatest  sacrifice  in  order  'to  obtain  it,  is  set  forth  in  the 
parables  of  the  Treasure  hid  in  the  field  and  in  that  of 
the  Merchant  seeking  goodly  pearls,  while  the  parables  of 
Tares  and  of  the  Drag-net  set  forth  the  idea  that  the  out- 
ward appearance  of  belonging  to  the  Kingdom  will  be 
assumed  by  some  who  are  not  genuine  members  of  it; 
there  will  be  counterfeit  Christians  whom  God  alone  can 
distinguish  from  the  true.  These  parables  also  serve, 
indirectly,  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom's  de- 
velopment. It  encounters  constant  hindrance  and  embar- 
rassment arising  from  the  insusceptibility  and  wickedness 
with  which  it  constantly  meets,  and  is  compelled  to  con- 
tend. 

Again,  the  Kingdom  is  universal  in  its  design  and  scope. 
It  is  for  all  who  fulfil  the  spiritual  conditions  of  partici- 
pating in  its  benefits.  It  knows  no  racial,  social,  or  terri- 
torial limits.  It  is  true  that  Christ  offered  himself  and 
his  Kingdom  to  the  Jewish  people.  They  were  the  people 
of  revelation.  Their  history  had  been  a  special  preparation 
for  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  in  its  completed  idea  and 
form.  To  them,  therefore,  an  economic  precedence  was 
accorded,  in  agreement  with  the  providential  law  which 
Paul  afterwards  enunciated :  "  To  the  Jew  first,  and  also 
to  the  Greek"  (Rom.  i.  16).  The  Jews  were  the  "sons 
of  the  Kingdom  "  (Matt.  viii.  12)  by  right  and  privilege, 
but  not  in  such  a  sense  that  they  should  not  be  "cast 
forth"  in  case  they  failed  to  fulfil  the  conditions  of  repent- 


THE   KINGDOM   OF    GOD  37 

ance,  humility,  and  purity  of  heart.  This  the  nation  as  a 
whole  did.  "  Therefore,"  said  Jesus,  "  the  Kingdom  of 
God  shall  be  taken  away  from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation 
bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof"  (Mt.  xxi.  43). 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  his  Kingdom  has 
everywhere  the  note  of  universality  in  it.  It  was  for  all 
men  who  would  enter  it.  The  most  abandoned  sinners 
might  enter  it,  and  did  enter  it  in  greater  numbers  than 
did  the  religious  leaders  of  the  time  (Mt.  xxi.  31).  To 
say  that  the  Kingdom  is  universal  in  idea  is  but  to  say  that 
Chri^t_caine  to  save  the  lost.  The  Kingdom  is  a  gracious 
boon  to  sinful  and  needy  humanity.  Its  universality  is 
involved  in  its  spirituality.  No  external  limitations  can 
be  imposed  upon  its  destination  so  long  as  the  conditions 
of  entering  it  are  internal.  As  for  the  apostle  Paul  the 
universality  of  the  gospel  stood  connected  with  the  inner 
condition  of  receiving  it,  namely,  faith,  so  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  there  is  the  closest  connection  between  the  spirit- 
ual conditions  of  entering  the  Kingdom  and  its  essential 
universality.  John  the  Baptist  may  have  conceived  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God  whose  coming  he  heralded  as  consist- 
ing of  a  purified  Israel  —  the  "wheat"  of  the  nation  which 
should  be  left  after  the  "chaff"  had  been  winnowed  out 
and  consumed  by  the  Messiah,  but  the  conception  of  Jesus 
was  vastly  broader  and  higher.  He  knew  that  his  King- 
dom was  not  to  come  in  the  world  by  any  quick  transfor- 
mation of  the  Jewish  nation  as  such  or  by  some  sudden 
stroke  of  divine  power — as  the  people  expected  and  as  even 
the  prophets  often  described  it  as  doing.  He  knew  that  it 
would  not  spring  up  complete  in  some  great  crisis,  but 
that  its  coming  would  be  a  great  and  gradual  movement  of 
God  in  history  which  should  go  on  through  the  ages. 

It  results  from  this  conception  that  the  Kingdom  may 
be  spoken  of  now  as^^resent , -ncia^as Aiixie .  It  was  already 
present  in  its  beginnings  when  Jesus  ^waa  on  earth,  yet  its 
p.nn snTnn-i^^tion  was  future.  He  dwells  now  on  the  one, 
now  on  the  other  aspect  of  his  Kingdom  without  speaking 
explicitly  of  the  relation  of  the  two  aspects  and  without 
any  consciousness  of  contradiction  between  them.     That 


38  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

which  involves  a  world-historical  process  must  be,  at  any- 
given  moment,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  both  past,  pres- 
ent, and  future. 

The  most  explicit  recognition  of  the  Kingdom  as  a 
present  fact  is  found  in  such  passages  as  :  "  The  Kingdom 
of  God  is  among  you "  (ivrk  vfXMv,  Lk.  xvii.  21)  ;  ''  The 
Kingdom  of  God  is  come  upon  you"  (e(^'  v/^a?,  Mt.  xii. 
28).  But  numerous  other  passages  imply  tlie  same  idea, 
as  when  Jesus  says  that  from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist 
the  Kingdom  of  heaven  was  being  taken  by  violence  (Mt. 
xi.  12)  —  stormed,  as  it  were,  by  the  lost  and  perishing  in 
their  eager  desire  to  enter  it.  In  like  manner  the  parables 
of  the  Sower,  the  Tares,  the  Mustard-seed,  and  the  Leaven 
all  rest  upon  the  view  that  the  Kingdom  is  a  present  force 
which  has  already  begun  to  develop  itself  in  the  world. 
Jesus  spoke  of  persons  who  were  entering  it  at  the  time 
(Mt.  xxi.  31 ;  xxiii.  13),  and  called  upon  men  to  seek  it 
(Mt.  vi.  33),  and  to  enter  the  narrow  door  into  life  (Mt. 
vii.  13),  which  is  but  a  name  for  the  blessing  of  the  King- 
dom. Moreover,  the  humblest  member  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  (Mt.  xi.  11),  that  is,  the  least  disciple  of  Christ,  is 
said  to  be  greater  than  John  the  Baptist;  that  is,  he  enjoys 
greater  privileges  and  stands  upon  a  higher  plane  of  reve- 
lation. This  saying  assumes  that  the  Kingdom  is  a  pres- 
ent reality. 

/  And  yet,  entrance  into  the  Kingdom  is  often  spoken  of 
(^  (  as  something  that  is  to  take  place  in  the  future,  and  the 
^Kingdom  itself  described  as  something  that  is  yet  to  come. 
When  Jesus  said,  on  one  occasion,  that  some  of  those  who 
heard  him  speak  should  not  die  till  they  saw  the  Kingdom 
of  God  come  with  power  (Mk.  ix.  1),  he  doubtless  referred 
to  some  future  epoch  at  which  the  Kingdom  should  ad- 
vance to  a  new  stage  of  its  development.  When,  again,  he 
spoke  of  the  time  when  men  should  come  from  the  east 
and  from  the  west  to  sit  down  in  the  Kino-dom  of  God 
(Lk.  xiii.  29),  and  when,  at  the  last  supper,  he  referred 
to  the  repast  which  he  should  enjoy  with  his  disciples  in 
the  Kingdom  of  God  (Mk.  xiv.  25),  he  seems  clearly  to 
have  had  in  mind  the  consummation  of  the  Kingdom  in 


THE   KINGDOM   OF    GOD  89 

heaven.  He  probably  spoke  of  the  Kingdom  in- this  es- 
ch^ologieat  sense  when  he  said  to  his  disciples  that  unless 
their  righteousness  exceeded  that  of  the  scribes  and  Phari- 
sees they  should  not  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God  (Mt. 
V.  20).  Both  the  present  and  the  future  aspect  of  the 
Kingdom  are  recognized  in  the  words :  "  Whosoever  shall 
not  receive  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall 
in  no  wise  enter  therein  "  (Mk.  x.  15). 

The  question  now  arises :  On  what  principle  is  this  ap- 
parent inconsistency  in  the  use  of  the  title  to  be  explained? 
Some  scholars  hold  that,  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry, 
Jesus  did  expect  that  his  Kingdom  in  its  heavenly  perfec- 
tion was  to  be  suddenly  and  miraculously  introduced,  and 
that  he  afterwards  came  to  perceive  that  the  Kingdom  was 
to  be  established  on  earth  by  a  process  of  development.^ 
On  this  view  one  set  of  expressions  might  be  regarded  as 
reflecting  his  less  mature  conception,  and  the  other  as  dis- 
closing a  new  aspect  of  his  thought  concerning  the  King- 
dom. The  capital  objection  to  this  theory  is  that  we  do 
not  find  Jesus  speaking  in  his  earlier  sayings  of  his  King- 
dom as  belonging  to  some  future  epoch,  and  supplement- 
ing this  idea  later  by  referring  to  it  as  already  present,  and 
as  subject  to  an  earthly  development.^ 

Another  solution  is  that  Jesus  always  thought  of  his 
Kingdom  as  future,  and  the  apparent  references  to  it  as 
already  present  are  merely  proleptic,  and  really  refer  to 
the  course  of  Christian  history  which  must  precede  the 
coming  of  the  Kingdom.  This  view  is  frequently  ex- 
pressed in  Meyer's  Commentary.  It  seems  to  me  to  pro- 
ceed upon  an  unnatural  interpretation  of  many  texts.  It 
is,  for  example,  a  singular  inversion  of  a  natural  sequence 
of  ideas  to  suppose  that  the  petition  :  "  Thy  Kingdom 
come,"  refers  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  that  the  suc- 
ceeding petition,  "  Thy  will  be  done  on  earth,"  etc.,  refers 
to  a  condition  which  must  be  fulfilled  in  the  life  of  believ- 
ers before  the  previous  petition    can    be    realized.     It  is 

1  So,  substantially,  Beyschlag,  Lehen  Jesu,  and  Baldensperger,  Das 
Selhsthewusstsein  Jes2i,  passim. 

2  For  a  detailed  critique  of  this  theory,  see  Wendt,  Teaching,  I.  380  sq. 


40  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF    JESUS 

equally  unnatural  to  interpret  the  words  :  "  The  Kingdom 
of  God  is  among  you,"  as  meaning  only  that  the  Messiah, 
the  King  and  bearer  of  the  Kingdom,  was  in  their  midst 
(Meyer). 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  varied  language  of 
Jesus  respecting  the  coming  of  this  Kingdom  is  best  ex- 
plained by  supposing  him  to  have  taken  a  comprehensive 
view  of  its  nature  and  progress.  He  conceived  of  the 
Kingdom  as  already  present,  but  in  its  fuller  development 
and  in  its  final  perfection  it  was  still  future.  This  large, 
free  use  of  the  term,  according  to  which  now  one,  now 
another,  aspect  of  the  Kingdom  is  dwelt  upon,  renders  it 
impossible  to  define  the  Kingdom  adequately  in  any  single 
formula.  It  is  difiicult  to  define,  not  because  it  means 
nothing  in  particular,  but  because  it  means  so  much. 
Specific  features  of  Christ's  conception  of  the  subject  will 
come  up  for  consideration  as  we  proceed. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   SON  OF  MAN 


To  determine  the  meaning  of  the  title  ''Son  of  man" 
isjone  of  the  most  difficult  tasks  which  confronts  the  stu- 
dent of  the  New  Testament.  When  we  carefully  examine 
the  passages  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  Synoptics  we  find  i  ~\ 
that  they  naturally  fall  into  three  .classes.  In  one  group  JJ 
of  sayings  the  title  is  used  with  reference  to  Jesus'  earthly 
life:  "The  Son  of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
sins*'  (Mk.  ii.  10);  "is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath"  (ii.  28); 
"  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head  "  (Mt.  viii.  20) ;  "  is  come 
to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  is  lost"  (Lk.  xix.  10).  In 
a  second  group  the  title  is  associated  with  his  sufferings  ^\ 
and  death :  "  The  Son  of  man  must  suffer  many  things  "  '^ 
(Mk.  viii.  31) ;  "  is  delivered  up  into  the  hands  of  men  " 
(Mk.  ix.  31) ;  "  goeth  (to  death)  even  as  it  is  written  of 
him"  (Mk.  xiv.  21).  In  a  third  group  the  title  is  used  in 
connection  with.his  parousia.  Examples  of  this  usage  "5 
are:  "Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in 
heaven"  (Mt.  xxiv.  31),  and  "When  the  Son  of  man 
shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  angels  with  him," 
etc.  (Mt.  XXV.  31).  The  second  of  these  groups  of  pas- 
sages emphasizes  the  humiliation,  the  third  the  majesty, 
of  the  Son  of  man.  Most  of  the  passages  of  the  first 
group  may  be  regarded  as  more  or  less  akin  to  those  of 
the  second  or  the  third.  The  question,  then,  may  be  put 
in  this  form :  Does  the  title  denote  primarily  humiliation, 
or  some  kindred  thought,  or  does  it  suggest  exaltation  and 
majesty  ? 

A  preliminary  question  arises  here:  was  "the  Son  of 
man"  a   current  Messianic   title   in  Jesus'  time?     Most 

41 


42        THE  SYNOPTIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

scholars  have  answered  this  question  in  the  negative.^  In 
favor  of  this  view  it  is  said  that  Jesus'  use  of  the  title  per- 
plexed the  Jews,  who  thereby  showed  that  they  were  not 
familiar  with  it:  "How  sayest  thou,  'the  Son  of  man' 
must  be  lifted  up  ?  Who  is  this,  '  the  Son  of  man '  ?  " 
(Jn.  xii.  34).  But  to  this  it  is  replied  that  it  was  the 
strangeness  of  the  neiv  conception  of  the  Son  of  man,  not 
the  strangeness  of  the  title  itself,  which  perplexed  the 
Jews.  The  idea  that  the  Messianic  Son  of  man  should 
suffer  death  was  what  surprised  and  shocked  them,  and 
led  them  to  say :  "  We  have  been  taught  to  think  that  the 
Messiah  abides  forever ;  who  is  this  Son  of  man  who  must 
suffer  and  die?"^  The  conclusion  that  the  designation 
was  not  a  current  Messianic  title  has  also  been  derived 
from  the  question  which  drew  out  Peter's  confession  (Mt. 
xvi.  13).  Jesus  asks:  ''Who  do  men  say  that  the  Son  of 
man  is  ?"  Various  replies  are  given,  among  them  Peter's 
that  he  is  the  Messiah,  showing  that  "the  Son  of  man"  in 
this  question  could  not  have  been  understood  by  the  dis- 
ciples as  a  synonym  for  the  Messiah.  This  would  be  a 
forcible  consideration  but  for  the  fact  that  Matthew's  ver- 
sion of  the  incident  is  an  amplification  of  the  simpler  narra- 
tive in  Mark  (viii.  27),  where  the  title  "  Son  of  man  "  is  not 
employed  in  the  conversation.  Moreover,  it  is  not  found 
in  Luke's  version  of  the  narrative  (ix.  18  sg.).  No  conclu- 
sion, therefore,  can  be  drawn  from  this  passage,  although, 
as  Professor  Bruce  has  pointed  out,  it  may  still  be  claimed 
that  "  the  substitution  of  the  title  for  the  personal  pronoun 
by  the  first  evangelist  is  significant,  as  showing  that  at  the 
time  when  his  Gospel  was  written,  the  name  '  Son  of  man ' 
was  not  regarded  as  a  synonym  for  Christ."  ^ 

A  much  more  forcible  argument  in  favor  of  the  supposi- 
tion that  "  the  Son  of  man  "  was  not  a  Messianic  title  in 


1  So  Stanton,  The  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Messiah,  p.  240  ;  Drum- 
mond,  The  Jewish  Messiah,  p.  284  ;  cf.  Ch.  I.  Sec.  IV.  ;  Holtzmann, 
mutest.  Theol.  I.  262. 

2  So  Meyer  in  loco,  and  Scburer,  The  Jewish  People,  Div.  II.  Vol  III. 
p.  69  (§32.2). 

3  The  Kingdom  of  God,  pp.  167,  168. 


THE   SON   OF   MAN  43 

current  use  in  Jesus'  day  is,  that  although  he  carefully 
avoided  making  a  public  declaration  of  his  messiahship,  and 
sought  to  prevent  such  a  declaration  from  being  made  by 
others  down  to  the  end  of  his  Galilean  ministry,  he  applies 
the  name  "  Son  of  man  "  to  himself  frequently  and  from 
the  first.  If  the  title  had  been  understood  as  a  synonym 
for  Messiah,  this  use  of  it  would  have  been  equivalent  to 
a  declaration  of  his  messiahship.  It  is  rej^lied  that  Jesus 
used  the  title  enigmatically,  meaning  by  it  something  quite 
different  from  what  it  meant  in  popular  usage.^  But  this 
answer  is  hardly  sufficient,  because  if  the  phrase  had  been 
a  current  Messianic  title,  the  people  would  have  understood 
him  by  the  use  of  it  to  proclaim  himself  as  the  Messiah, 
whatever  differences  there  might  have  been  between  their 
conceptions  and  his  of  Messiah's  character  and  work.  It  is 
easy  to  see  how  in  the  application  to  himself  of  a  current 
Messianic  title,  he  might  mean  more  than  the  people  meant 
by  it,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  he  could  have  meant  less 
than  to  proclaim  that  he  tvas  the  Messiah.  In  that  case 
how  could  his  use  of  it  have  been  really  "  enigmatic "  ? 
Another  consideration  looking  towards  the  conclusion  that 
the  phrase  was  not  a  current  Messianic  title  is  this :  "  the 
Son  of  man  "  was  a  self-designation  of  Jesus.  The  evange- 
lists have  not  themselves  applied  this  name  to  him,  and  they 
lead  us  to  infer  that  his  immediate  disciples  did  not.^  Why 
should  they  have  refrained  from  the  use  of  a  familiar  Mes- 
sianic title  which  he  himself  so  freely  employed?  The 
reply  is  made  that  the  fact  that  they  refrained  from  its  use 
was  due  to  its  enigmatic  character ;  ^  but  was  it  really  enig- 
matic if  familiar  to  them  and  to  the  people  generally  as  a 
synonym  for  Messiah?  These  last  two  considerations 
seem  to  me  to  have  a  good  deal  of  weight  in  favor  of  the 
view  that  the  title  was  not  commonly  used  or  understood 
as  a  name  for  the  Messiah. 

1  So  R.  H.  Charles,  Book  of  Enoch;  appendix  B  :  "The  Son  of  Man  ; 
its  Origin  and  Meaning,"  p.  317. 

2  The  title  is  used  but  once  in  the  N.  T.  by  another  than  Jesus  himself 
—  by  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  56). 

3  Charles,  oj).  cit.,  p.  316. 


44  THE  SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

The  bearing  upon  our  inquiry  of  the  use  which  is  made 
of  the  phrase  "  Son  of  man,"  in  the  similitudes  of  the  Book 
of  Enoch  (chs.  xxxvii.-lxxi.),  is  uncertain,  because  their 
date  is  disputed.  In  those  chapters  the  title  is  frequently 
used  as  a  Messianic  designation,  as,  for  example  :  "  And  I 
asked  the  angel  who  went  with  me  and  showed  me  all  the 
hidden  things,  concerning  that  Son  of  man,  who  he  was, 
and  whence  he  was,"  etc.  (xlvi.  1),  "For  the  Son  of  man 
has  appeared  and  sits  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,"  etc.  (Ixix. 
29).  If  these  portions  of  the  book  are  post-Christian,  the 
passages  would  merely  illustrate  the  Messianic  sense  which 
the  title  had  in  Christian  usage.  If,  on  the  contrary,  they 
are  pre-Christian ,i  we  should  have  one  example  (if  the  only 
one),  of  a  Messianic  use  of  the  title  to  which  the  usage  of 
Jesus  may  have  attached  itself.  Even  on  this  view,  how- 
ever, we  could  not  be  sure  that  Jesus  was  familiar  with 
this  usage,  and  it  might  have  been  too  limited  and  excep- 
tional to  have  influenced  his  own. 

When  these  various  considerations  are  taken  together, 
we  think  that  they  establish  the  conclusion  that  the  title 
was  not  in  current  use  as  a  designation  of  the  Messiah.  It 
was  not,  however,  an  unknown  term ;  it  was  found  in  the 
Old  Testament.  It  may  have  been  occasionally  employed 
in  a  Messianic  sense,  but  it  was  not  current  coin  in  the 
speech  of  the  people  concerning  the  Messiah.  There  was 
^something  distinctive\in  Jesus'  use  of  it.  Although  not  a 
new  title,  it  received  from  his  hand  a  certain  stamp  of 
originality  and  uniqueness. 

We  turn,  then,  to  the  question  of  its  origin  and  connec- 
tion with  Old  Testament  language.  The  Hebrew  use  of 
the  term  "  son  "  to  denote  a  relation  of  likeness  or  parti- 
cipation in  that  to  which  sonship  is  predicated,  is  familiar, 
and  has  passed  over  into  the  New  Testament.  The  "  son 
of  the  handmaid"  (Gal.  iv.  30)  is  a  servant;  the  "sons 
of  the  Kingdom"  (Mt.  viii.  12)  are  those  who  should 
participate  in  its  truths  and  blessings.  So  a  "son  of 
man  "  may  mean  simply  one  who  shares  human  qualities, 

1  As  Scliiirer  maintains,  Jewish  People,  Div.  IL  Vol.  III.  p.  66 
(§  32.  2)  ;  Charles,  op.  cit.,  p.  30,  assigns  the  Similitudes  to  95-64  b.c. 


THE   SON   OF   MAN  45 

as,  for  example,  frailty  or  mortality,  in  contrast  to  God, 

thus:  — 

"  What  is  man,  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him, 
And  the  son  of  man,  that  thou  visitest  him?" 

(Ps.  viii.  4.) 

In  this  way  "  Son  of  man  "  becomes  an  emphatic  designa- 
tion for  man  in  his  characteristic  attributes  of  weakness  and 
^helplessness  (Num.  xxiii.  19;  Job  xvi.  21;  xxv.  6).  In 
this  sense  the  title  is  applied  about  eighty  times  to  Ezekiel 
as  a  reminder  of  his  weakness  and  mortality,  and  as  an 
incentive  to  humility  in  the  fulfilment  of  his  prophetic 
calling. 

In  Dan.  vii.  a  symbolic  description  is  given  of  foreign 
nations  under  the  designation  of  "  beasts."  Finally,  the 
seer  beholds,  in  contrast  to  these  powers  whose  dominion 
ceases,  another  figure  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven 
and  establishing  an  everlasting  Kingdom:  *'I  saw  in  the 
night  visions,  and,  behold,  there  came  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven  one  like  unto  a  son  of  man,  and  he  came  even  to 
the  ancient  of  days,  and  they  brought  him  near  before  him. 
And  there  was  given  him  dominion,  and  glor}^,  and  a  king- 
dom, that  all  the  peoples,  nations,  and  languages,  should 
serve  him:  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion,  which 
shall  not  pass  away,  and  his  Kingdom  that  which  shall  not 
be  destroyed"  (Dan.  vii.  13,  14).  This  passage  is  com- 
monly understood  to  be  a  picture  of  Israel  which,  in  con- 
trast to  the  "  beasts,"  the  foreign  nations,  is  likened  to  the 
noble  human  form.  That  it  describes  the  nation,  rather 
than  an  individual,  is  rendered  probable  by  verse  27:  "And 
the  Kingdom  and  the  dominion,  and  the  greatness  of  the 
kingdoms  under  the  whole  heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the 
people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,"  etc.  The  phrase 
"one  like  unto  a  son  of  man"  was  no  doubt  popularly 
understood  as  referring  to   the   person  of  the  Messiah.^ 

1  Some  modern  scholars  hold  this  interpretation.  Schultz  says : 
"Daniel  probably  thinks  of  the  Messiah  as  descending  in  the  last  days 
from  heaven,  where  he  dwells  with  God,  and  revealing  himself  in  a 
heavenly  form  like  one  of  the  angel-princes  whom  the  book  is  elsewhere 
accustomed  to  describe  as  'like  unto  a  son  of  man'  "  (Dan.  viii.  15;  x. 
5,  16).     0.  T.  Theol  11.  439,  440. 


46  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

It  is  this  passage  which,  without  doubt,  underlies  the  usage 
of  the  Book  of  Enoch. 

It  may  be  regarded  as  in  the  highest  degree  probable 
that  the  use  of  the  title  "Son  of  man"  by  our  Lord  had 
a  point  of  connection  with  this  passage.  If  so,  the  con- 
nection  would  suggest  that  "the  Son  of  man"  was  a  title 
!  of  dignity,  and  that  it  belonged  to  Jesus  as  the  founder  of 
^  the  imperishable  Kingdom  of  God.  The  apocalyptic  origin 
and  use  of  the  term  would,  moreover,  accord  well  with 
Jesus'  frequent  use  of  the  title  in  connection  with  his 
assertions  concerning  his  parousia  and  the  consummation 
of  his  Kingdom. 

A  brief  survey  must  now  be  taken  of  the  principal 
theories  which  have  been  common  among  scholars  respect- 
ing the  meaning  which  Jesus  attached  to  this  self-designa- 
tion.    Among  these  we  note  the  following: 

(1)  The  title  meant  for  Jesus  simply  "the  Messiah," 
and  was  derived  directly  from  Dan.  vii.  13.  So,  e.g.^ 
Meyer:  "Jesus  means  nothing  else  by  this  title  than  'the 
Messiah';  he  means  nothing  else  than  the  Son  of  man  in 
the  prophecy  of  Daniel."^  This  view  encounters  the  diffi- 
culty, already  noted,  that  if  Jesus  meant  by  the  title  simply 
"  the  Messiah,"  he  would  have  been  proclaiming  his  mes- 
siahship  from  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  which  is  quite 
contrary  to  the  Synoptic  representation.  This  theory  fits 
very  well  the  use  of  the  title  in  the  apocalyptic  pas- 
sages, but  is  inadequate  in  view  of  such  references  as 
those  to  the  ministrations  and  non-ascetic  life  of  the  Son 
of  man. 

(2)  "Son  of  man"  means  the  ideal,  typical,  representa- 
tive man.  This  interpretation  has  been  widely  current 
since  Schleiermacher.  The  following  are  typical  expres- 
sions of  it: 

"  He  calls  himself  '  Son  of  man '  because  he  had  ap- 
peared as  a  man ;  because  he  belonged  to  mankind ;  be- 
cause he  had  done  such  great  things  for  human  nature  ; 
because  he  was  himself  the  realized  ideal  of  humanity."  ^ 

1  Commentary  on  Mt,  viii.  20. 

2  Neander,  Life  of  Christ  (Bohn  ed.),  p.  99. 


THE   SON   OF   MAN  47 

Reuss  says  that  what  is  declared  by  the  title  "  Son  of 
man  "  is  the  fact  of  "  the  realization  of  the  moral  ideal 
in  the  person  of  him  who  assumed  such  a  name."^  Stan- 
ton says  :  "  It  is  clear  that  Christ  by  his  phrase  repre- 
sented himself  as  the  head,  the  type,  the  ideal  of  the 
race." 2  The  view  advanced  by  Baur  and  others,  who 
speak  of  the  Son  of  man  as  one  qui  liwnani  nihil  a  se 
alienum  piitat,  and  combine  this  conception  with  the 
Danielle  idea  of  majesty,  is  hardly  more  than  a  variation 
of  this  theory.  Examples  of  the  way  in  which  the  theory 
is  applied  are :  Since  the  sabbath  was  made  for  man 
(Mk.  ii.  27),  it  falls  within  the  province  of  his  authority 
who,  as  the  representative  man,  makes  all  human  inter- 
ests his  care.  The  Son  of  man,  although  he  is  the  ideal 
man,  has  not  where  to  lay  his  head  (Mt.  viii.  20). 

Attractive  as  this  theory  is,  and  true  as  its  fundamental 
idea  is,  in  itself  considered,  there  is  a  serious  difficulty  in 
supposing  that  Jesus  used  the  title  under  consideration 
in  the  sense  proposed.  The  theory  finds  no  point  of  con- 
nection between  Jesus'  use  of  the  term  and  that  which 
we  observe  in  the  Old  Testament,  unless  it  combines  its 
characteristic  idea,  somewhat  arbitrarily,  with  the  concep- 
tion in  Daniel.  The  extra-Biblical  use  of  the  phrase  lends 
no  support  to  this  interpretation.  In  fact,  this  explana- 
tion is  too  abstract  and  philosophical  to  be  native  to  Pales- 
tinian Judaism,  and  bears  the  marks  of  modern  reflection. 

(3)  The  title  may  be  regarded  as  connected,  primarily, 
with  the  Old  Testament  representations  which  use  the 
phrase  to  emphasize  finite  lowliness  and  weakness  (in 
Ezekiel  and  elsewhere).  The  popular  interpretation  of 
Dan.  vii.  13  in  a  Messianic  sense  enabled  Jesus  to  avail 
himself  of  the  phrase  as  a  Messianic  designation,  although 
for  his  mind  its  content  was  derived  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment representations,  which  use  the  term  "  Son  of  man  " 
to  express  creaturehood,  weakness,  and  lowliness.  For 
him  there  was  no  contradiction  between  the  Messianic 
dignity  and  the  human  weakness,  humility,  and  suffering 

1  History  of  Christian  Theology,  I.  199  (orig.  I.  231). 

2  2"he  Jewish  and  Christian  Messiah^  p.  246. 


48  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

in  which  his  Messianic  work  should  be  wrought.  On 
this  view  we  may  say  that  the  Daniel  passage  supplies 
the  form^  and  the  other  Old  Testament  expressions  con- 
cerning the  Son  of  man  the  content  of  Jesus'  idea.  This 
view  is  elaborated  by  Wendt.^  I  must  say  respecting  it 
that  it  does  not  seem  natural  to  explain  a  Messianic  title 
by  reference  to  an  Old  Testament  usage  which  was  not 
Messianic  and  was  not  popularly  supposed  to  be.  More- 
over, this  explanation  does  not  seem  to  accord  very  well 
with  the  majesty  which  is  ascribed  to  the  Son  of  man  in 
the  apocalyptic  passages  in  our  sources ;  nor  does  it  seem 
to  me  that  Wendt  succeeds  in  giving  a  natural  explana- 
tion of  its  use  in  the  passages  concerning  forgiveness 
and  the  sabbath  (Mk.  ii.  7,  28). 2 

(4)  Another  type  of  explanation  makes  use  of  the  Old 
Testament  concept  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  in  explain- 
ing the  title.  Mr.  Vernon  Bartlet  has  combined  this 
idea  with  the  theory  which  I  have  just  explained. ^  Rev. 
R.  H.  Charles  combines  that  idea  with  the  notion  of 
majesty  found  in  Daniel,  which  he  regards  as  the  primal 
source  of  the  designation.*  According  to  this  view,  the 
notion  which  is  given  in  Daniel  has  been  influenced  and 
developed  by  apocalyptic  usage,  such  as  we  find  in  the 
Book  of  Enoch.  In  that  book  the  Son  of  man  is  a  super- 
natural Being,  who  sits  upon  God's  throne  and  possesses 
universal  dominion.  The  conception  furnished  by  Daniel 
seems  to  have  been  blended  with  the  idea  of  the  Servant 
of  Jehovah,  found  in  the  exilic  Isaiah.  Now  when  Jesus 
took  up  the  title,  he  transformed  the  conception,  as  he 
did  all  popular  ideas,  by  giving  it  a  deeper  or  more  spirit- 
ual significance.  This  transformation  is  best  understood 
if  we  suppose  that  the  idea  of  majesty  derived  from  Dan- 
iel was  modified  and  spiritualized  by  having  combined  with 
it  the  idea  of  the  suffering  Servant  of  Jehovah,  as  pre- 

1  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II.  139  sq.  (orig.  p.  440  sq.). 

2  Teachi7ig  of  Jesus,  II.  145  (orig.  p.  445) . 

3  TJie  Expositor,  December,  1892. 

4  The  Book  of  Enoch;  appendix  B  :  "  The  Son  of  Man  ;  its  Origin  and 
Meaning"  (1893). 


THE   SON   OF   MAN  49 

sented  in  the  second  Isaiah.  Thus  Jesus'  use  of  the 
title  would  be  analogous  to  the  one  clear  example  of  its 
Messianic  import  in  pre-Christian  literature  —  its  use  in 
the  Book  of  Enoch. 

"  These  two  conceptions,"  says  Mr.  Charles,  "  though 
outwardly  antithetic,  are,  through  the  transformation  of  the 
former,  reconciled  and  fulfilled  in  a  deeper  unity  —  in  the 
New  Testament  Son  of  man."^  In  Jesus  these  two 
characters  meet  and  blend.  He  is  supernatural,  majestic, 
and  powerful,  but  his  glory  is  displayed  in  self-renunciation 
and  service.  His  greatness  is  his  condescending  and  sacri- 
ficial love.  He  is  greatest,  but,  as  such,  is  servant  of  all, 
"  If  then,  we  bear  in  mind  the  inward  synthesis  of  these 
two  ideals  of  the  past  in  an  ideal,  nay,  in  a  Personality 
transcending  them  both,  we  shall  find  little  difficulty  in 
understanding  the  startling  contrasts  that  present  them- 
selves in  the  New  Testament  in  connection  with  this 
designation."  ^  Accordingly  it  is  explained  that  although 
the  Son  of  man  is  homeless,  yet  he  is  Lord  of  the  sabbath ; 
although  despised,  rejected,  and  crucified,  yet  he  is  Judge" 
of  mankind. 

While  this  view,  no  doubt,  contains  important  elements 
of  truth,  it  encounters  the  difficulties  which  we  have  already 
noticed  in  the  supposition  that  "the  Son  of  man  "  was  a 
current  Messianic  title.  The  apparent  combination  of 
these  two  Messianic  ideals  of  Daniel  and  Isaiah  in  the 
Book  of  Enoch  gives  but  a  very  uncertain  basis  for  the 
conclusion  that  Jesus  made  a  similar  combination  of  them 
in  the  title  "  Son  of  man."  This  conclusion  must  remain 
precarious  while  the  date  of  the  Similitudes  remains  so 
uncertain,  and  is  especially  so  in  view  of  the  doubt  that 
Jesus  was  in  any  case  familiar  with  them.^ 

We  have  seen  that,  in  all  probability,  our  Lord's  use  of 
the  title  had  some  historical  connection  with  the  passage 
in  Daniel.    That  may,  therefore,  be  made  the  starting-point 

1  Ojy.  at,  p.  315. 

2  Op.  cit.,  p.  316. 

3  Cf.  Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  25 ;  Weiss,  Bihl.  Theol 
§  16,  a. 


50  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

in  any  effort  to  explain  its  meaning.  We  have  also  found 
good  reason  for  believing  that  it  was  not  a  synonym  for 
Messiah,  but  that  it  had  for  the  mind  of  Jesus  some  unique 
and  distinctive  meaning.  In  naming  himself  by  preference 
"  Son  of  man "  he  did  not  proclaim  himself  as  Messiah. 
Yet  by  the  title  he  must  have  meant  to  connote  qualities 
which  were  fundamental  in  his  character. 

At  this  point  a  philological  consideration  is  brought  to 
view  which  seems  important  for  the  discussion.  Jesus 
spoke  Aramaic ;  6  uio?  tov  avOpcoTrov  is  a  Greek  translation 
of  the  Aramic  term  hamasha  which  he  used.  Wellhausen 
says :  *'  With  emphasis  Jesus  uniformly  used  this  most 
universal  generic  name  (Son  of  man)  to  designate  his  own 
ego.  But  that  name  signifies  man  and  nothing  further; 
the  Arameans  have  no  other  expression  for  the  concep- 
tion." ^  Wellhausen  further  maintains  that  the  use  of  the 
title  b}^  Jesus  has  no  connection  with  Dan.  vii.  13,  and  that 
it  was  because  the  first  Christians  erroneously  understood 
the  title  as  a  Messianic  designation  that  they  translated  it 
by  6  vlo^  TOV  avOpcoTTov^  instead  of  by  6  avOpcoiro^^  its  proper 
meaning.  These  opinions,  however,  are  inferences  which 
do  not  necessarily  follow  from  the  alleged  Aramaic  usage 
of  the  phrase. 

It  by  no  means  follows  from  the  fact  that  "  Son  of  man  " 
in  Aramaic  is  a  generic  designation  for  man  that  Jesus 
could  have  meant  nothing  distinctive  by  the  word.  By 
the  way  in  which  he  used  it  and  the  emphasis  which  he 
placed  upon  it,  he  would  be  able  to  impart  to  it  a  distinc- 
tive signification.  Particularly  would  this  be  the  case  if, 
as  is  probable,  the  title  was  in  some  degree  familiar  as  a 
designation  of  majesty.  The  Gospels  show  that  Jesus  did 
not  avoid  the  use  of  the  simple  /.  If  ''  the  Son  of  man  " 
had  been  for  him  a  perfectly  colorless  synonym  for  the 
personal  pronoun  /,  he  would  need  to  have  said  this  Son 
of  man,  in  order  to  give  the  phrase  any  force  as  a  self- 
designation.     He  must,  therefore,  have  used  the  title  to 

^  Israelit.  u.  JM.  Geschichte^  p.  312.  A  critique  of  Wellliausen's  view 
by  Oettli  will  be  found  in  No.  6  of  the  Easier  Kirchenfreund  (1895). 
For  other  references,  see  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  I.  25G. 


THE   SON   OF   MAN  51 

mark  in  some  way  what  was  peculiar  to  himself.^  The 
question,  then,  takes  this  form  :  What  sort  of  dignity,  what 
kind  of  a  chxim,  did  Jesus  implicitly  assert  in  so  naming 
himself  ?  It  is  probable  that  the  title  designated  for  Jesus 
characteristics  of  his  personality  which  accorded  with  his 
peculiar  life-work.  We  have  seen^  that  the  conception 
which  best  represented  his  life-task  was  that  of  the  King- 
dom of  God.  It  is  therefore  reasonable  to  conclude  that 
as  Son  of  man  he  conceives  himself  as  head  and  founder 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  origin  and  use  of  the  title, 
so  far  as  we  can  trace  them,  accord  with  this  supposition. 
In  Daniel  it  is  the  theocratic  king  who  is  likened  to  a 
son  of  man.  If  tlie  usage,  of  which  that  in  the  Book  of 
Enoch  is  an  illustration,  influenced  our  Lord's  employment 
of  the  term,  it  would  quite  naturally  fall  into  line  with 
this  explanation,  as  the  Son  of  man  there  appears  as  the 
glorious  founder  and  head  of  God's  Kingdom.  The  use  of 
the  title  in  our  sources  accords  well  with  this  view.  As 
his  Kingdom  is  both  present  and  future,  so,  as  Son  of  man, 
he  has  certain  experiences  to  undergo  in  founding  the 
Kingdom  here  on  earth  and  a  manifestation  in  glory  await- 
ing him  in  the  consummation  of  that  Kingdom.  Espe- 
cially does  this  explanation  fit  the  apocalyptic  passages 
which  speak  of  the  Son  of  man  as  coming  in  his  Kingdom. 
But  since  it  is  through  healing,  teaching,  suffering,  and 
death  that  Jesus  is  to  establish  his  Kingdom,  it  is  no  less 
natural  to  find  the  Son  of  man  described  as  engaged  in 
these  various  works  and  experiences  connected  with  his 
calling. 

To  substantially  this  conclusion  an  increasing  number 
of  scholars  now  adhere.  Despite  minor  points  of  differ- 
ence they  agi'ce  in  making  the  title  in  question  correlative 
to  the  Kingdom  of  God.  I  will  present  a  few  illustra- 
tions :  — 

Weiss  says  :    "No  doubt  every  Israelite  who  believed 

in  Scripture  could,  in  consequence  of  prophecy,  know  of 

a  Son  of  man  who,  because  Jehovah  would  bring  about  the 

completion  of  salvation  through  him,  had  such  a  divine 

1  See  Beyschlag,  iV.  T.  Theol.  I.  67  (Bk.  I.  ch.  iii.  §  5). 


52  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

calling  as  no  one  had  ever  had,  and  as  no  one  after  him 
could  have."  ^ 

The  conclusion  of  Beyschlag  is  similar.  After  reviewing 
the  passage,  he  says :  "  All  these  widely  diverging  utter- 
ances have  one  thing  in  common ;  they  all  treat  of  the  offi- 
cial sufferings  and  doings  of  Jesus ;  they  all  speak  of  him 
in  so  far  as  he  has  the  task  of  setting  up  the  Kingdom 
upon  earth."  "  The  Son  of  man  is  the  divinely  invested 
bearer  of  the  Kingdom  that  descends  from  above,  that  is 
to  be  founded  from  heaven ;  it  is  he  who  brings  in  the 
Kingdom  of  God."  ^ 

Holtzmann  concludes  his  investigation  thus:  "Jesus 
is  and  is  called  Son  of  man,  on  the  one  hand,  in  every 
place  where  by  forgiving  and  healing,  teaching  and  suffer- 
ing, he  proclaims,  extends,  and  represents  the  Kingdom 
of  God;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  and  especially  where, 
coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven,  he  consummates  the 
Kingdom."  ^ 

This  view  admits  of  a  natural  application  to  the  passages 
which  present  the  greatest  difficulties  for  other  theories. 
It  falls  within  his  province  as  the  founder  of  the  Kingdom 
to  forgive  sins  (Mk.  ii.  10),  and  to  interpret  the  true  sig- 
nificance and  use  of  the  sabbath  (Mk.  ii.  28).  The  living 
of  a  natural,  social  (non-ascetic)  life  (Mt.  xi.  19)  and  the 
relinquishment  of  the  comforts  of  home-life  (Mt.  viii.  20) 
were  conditions  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  heavenly  vocation. 
To  speak  against  his  person  is  less  heinous  than  to  deride 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  truth  and  goodness  which  speaks  in  his 
words  and  deeds  (Mk.  iii.  28,  29).  To  seek  and  to  save 
the  lost  (Lk.  xix.  10)  is  an  essential  part  of  his  work  who 
offers  the  blessings  of  his  Kingdom  to  the  most  wretched 
and  sinful.  All  these  passages  of  the  first  group  (see  page 
41)  depict  or  allude  to  aspects  of  his  work  as  founder  of 
the  Kingdom.  The  numerous  passages  which  refer  to  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  the  Son  of  man  (Mk.  viii.  31 ;  ix. 
31 ;  Mt.  ix.  12 ;  Lk.  xxiv.  7,  et  al.^  simply  describe  an  es- 
sential condition  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  calling,  —  an  expe- 

1  Bihl.  Theol.  §  16,  &.  2  jvr.  T.  Theol.  I.  64  (Bk.  L  ch.  iii.  §  5). 

3  mutest.  Theol  I.  253. 


THE   SON   OF   MAN  53 

rience  which  he  knew  both  from  prophecy  and  from  his  own 
consciousness  to  be  essential  to  the  completion  of  work. 

Bat  corresponding  to  the  rejection,  suffering,  and  death 
which  he  is  to  experience  is  the  glory  with  which  the  Son 
of  man  shall  come  in  his  Kingdom.  The  humiliation  is  off- 
set by  the  exaltation.  And  there  is  no  contradiction  be- 
tween these,  since  he  who  most  humbles  himself  shall  be 
most  exalted  (Lk.  xiv.  11).  The  King  comes  to  his  throne 
by  the  way  of  the  cross.  Humility  and  majesty  meet  and 
blend  in  the  character  and  experience  of  the  Son  of  man. 

Was  the  title,  then,  for  Jesus'  own  mind  a  name  for 
Messiah  ?  I  believe  we  must  adopt  the  conclusion  to 
which  our  whole  investigation  points,  that  it  had  Messi- 
anic significance  for  Jesus  ;  that  it  was  a  veiled  designa- 
tion of  his  messiahship.  We  have  seen  that  it  was  not  in 
popular  use  as  a  Messianic  title.  Its  use  by  our  Lord 
would  not  therefore  carry  an  explicit  assertion  of  messiah- 
ship. His  use  of  it  involved  the  claim  of  a  unique  mis- 
sion, a  calling  distinguishing  him  from  all  others.  As  his 
disciples  came  to  know  the  nature  of  that  calling,  they 
would  inevitably  conclude  that  it  veiled  the  claim  and 
involved  the  fact  that  he  was  the  Messiah.  In  this  way 
the  term,  though  not  in  itself  an  equivalent  for  Messiah, 
would  easily  become  a  Messianic  title  in  actual  usage. 
In  the  later  usage  which  the  Synoptics  reflect  —  the  apoc- 
alyptic usage  —  the  title  could  only  have  been  understood 
by  the  disciples  as  a  practical  equivalent  for  Messiah,  or, 
at  least,  as  implying  messiahship.  The  term  as  used  by 
Jesus  was  more  generic  than  Messiah,  and  just  on  this 
account  it  was  adapted  to  his  use.  But  the  head  and 
founder  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  in  reality  the  Messiah, 
and  the  more  explicit  he  made  his  claim  to  found  and 
complete  his  Kingdom,  the  more  naturally  would  "Son 
of  man  "  assume  the  character  of  a  Messianic  title.  And 
thus  this  "  most  unassuming  name,"  "  this  title  which  is 
no  title,  but  the  avoidance  of  every  such  thing,"  ^  easily 
came  to  signify  what  it  was  used  to  veil  but  no  less  truly 
implied. 

1  Beyschlag,  K  T.  Theol.  I.  6Q  (Bk.  I.  ch.  iii.  §  6). 


CHAPTER   V 

THE   SON  OF   GOD 

It  is  noticeable  that  Jesus  in  speaking  of  God  to  the 
people,  or  even  to  his  own  disciples,  never  uses  the  term 
"  Our  Father."  He  speaks  of  himself  as  God's  Son,  and  of 
others  as  sons  of  God,  but  he  does  not  class  himself  along 
with  other  men  under  a  common  term.  He  does  not 
speak  of  God's  fatherhood  as  if  it  had  the  same  meaning 
for  him  and  for  them.  He  says:  ''my  Father,"  and  "your 
Father  " ;  for  example :  "  All  things  have  been  delivered 
unto  me  of  my  Father,"  etc.  (Mt.  xi.  27)  ;  "  Your  Father 
knoweth  what  things  ye  have  need  of,"  etc.  (Mt.  vi.  8). 
Only  once,  so  far  as  our  sources  inform  us,  does  Jesus  use 
the  phrase  "our  Father,"  and  that  is  in  giving  a  form  of 
prayer  for  the  use  of  his  disciples.  No  example  can  be 
adduced  in  which  he  comprehends  himself  and  them  to- 
gether in  a  single  term  as  being  in  the  same  sense  "  sons  of 
God." 

We  have  seen  that  Jesus'  favorite  self-designation  was 
"the  Son  of  man."  There  is  no  passage  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  in  which  Jesus  explicitly  calls  himself  "  Son  of 
God."  He  does  so,  however,  by  very  clear  implication  in 
two  instances:  in  Mt.  xi.  27,  where  he  says  "my  Father," 
and  adds  :  "  no  one  knoweth  the  Son^  save  the  Father^''  etc., 
where  "  the  Son "  clearly  implies  the  complement,  "  of 
God."  So,  also,  in  Mk.  xiii.  32:  "Of  that  day  or  that 
hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven, 
neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father.'"  God  is  "  the  Father," 
"my  Father";  Jesus  is  "the  Son,"  i.e.,  God's  Son. 

By  less  direct  implication  Jesus  is  twice  represented  as 
the  Son  of^God:  (1)  in  the  parable  of  the  Vineyard  (Mk. 
xii.  1  sq.^.     The  lord  of  the  vineyard  is  Jehovah,  and  the 

54 


THE   SON   OF   GOD  55 

vineyard  is  the  Jewish  nation.  The  master  sent  to  this 
people  a  succession  of  his  "  servants,"  the  prophets,  "  that 
he  might  receive  from  the  husbandmen  of  the  fruits  of  the 
vineyard."  The  people  rejected  and  killed  them.  At 
length  he  sent  his  own  son,  but  he  received  the  same 
shameful  treatment:  "  He  had  yet  one,  a  beloved  son  :  he 
sent  him  last  unto  them,  saying,  They  will  reverence  my 
son.  But  these  husbandmen  said  among  themselves,  This 
is  the  heir ;  come,  let  us  kill  him,  and  the  inheritance  shall 
be  ours.  And  they  took  him,  and  killed  him,  and  cast  him 
forth  out  of  the  vineyard"  (vv.  6-8).  This  son  is  Jesus 
himself.  (2)  Somewhat  less  prominent  is  the  implication 
of  Jesus'  sonship  in  the  parable  of  the  Marriage  Feast  in 
Mt.  xxii.  2  sq. :  ''  The  Kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  unto 
a  certain  king,  who  made  a  marriage  feast  for  his  son,"  etc. 
The  parable  pictures  under  the  image  of  a  wedding  festival 
the  joys  and  blessings  of  Christ's  Kingdom  to  which  the 
Jews  are  first  bidden.  Upon  their  refusal  to  participate 
in  them  the  messengers  are  sent  to  the  heathen  with  the 
gospel-invitation. 1  We  have  thus  but  four  cases  in  Avhich 
Jesus  of  his  own  accord  refers  to  himself  by  implication  as 
the  Son  of  God,  and  two  of  these  are  quite  indirect  and 
incidental.  We  shall  see,  however,  that  he  acquiesces  in 
the  application  of  the  title  which  is  made  to  him  by  others. 
The  title  under  consideration  is  applied  to  Jesus  by 
others  under  the  most  varying  conditions.  All  the  Synop- 
tics record  that  a  divine  voice  came  to  him  out  of  heaven 
after  his  baptism :  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son ;  in  thee  I 
am  well  pleased  "  (Mk.  i.  11 ;  Lk.  iii.  22;  Mt.  iii.  17).  In 
somewhat  varying  form  the  same  utterance  is  said  by  all 
(Mk.  ix.  8;  Lk.  ix.  35;  Mt.  xvii.  5)  to  have  been  ad- 
dressed to  him  at  his  transfiguration.  In  these  expressions 
the  characteristic  thought  seems  to  be  that  as  Son  of  God 
he  is  the  special  object  of  the  Father's  good  pleasure.     In 

1  Difficult  critical  questions  beset  this  parable.  By  many  it  is  regarded 
as  a  variation  of  the  parable  of  the  Great  Feast  given  in  Lk.  xiv.  16  sq.  to 
which  Matthew  has  given  an  anti-Jewish  turn.  Wendt,  Lehi'e  Jesu,  p.  134, 
regards  vv.  11-14  as  a  distinct  parable  which  naturally  follows  the  parable 
as  given  by  Luke.  He  thinks  it  had  some  introductory  formula  prefixed  to 
it  which  he  supplies  by  the  conjectural  use  of  v.  2. 


56  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF    JESUS 

the  temptation-narrative  as  given  by  Luke  and  Matthew 
Satan  addresses  Jesus,  hypothetically,  thus  :  "  If  thou  be 
the  Son  of  God,  command  that  these  stones  become  bread  " 
(Mt.  iv.  3;  Lk.  iv.  3).  Here  the  Son  of  God  is  evidently 
the  wonder-working  Messiah  who,  if  genuine,  will  estab- 
lish his  claims  by  startling  exhibitions  of  arbitrary  power. 
In  all  three  sources  the  Gadarene  demoniacs  are  said  to 
address  Jesus  as  Son  of  God  (Mk.  v.  7 ;  Lk.  viii.  28 ;  Mt. 
viii.  29),  by  which  the  chosen  of  God,  probably  the  Mes- 
siah, seems  to  be  meant. 

On  one  occasion  (only  in  Mt.  xiv.  33)  he  is  worshipped 
by  a  company  of  disciples,  who  say :  "  Of  a  truth  thou  art 
the  Son  of  God."  In  Matthew's  version  of  Peter's  con- 
fession the  words  used  are :  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God  "  (Mt.  xvi.  16),  but  both  Mark  (viii.  29) 
and  Luke  (ix.  20)  have  shorter  forms  in  which  the  title  in 
question  is  not  used.  In  the  other  cases  where  the  title 
is  applied  to  Jesus  it  is  found  on  the  lips  of  his  enemies. 
Thus  the  high  priest  addressing  him  at  his  trial,  demands : 
"Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed?"  (Mk.  xiv. 
61  ;  cf.  Mt.  xxvi.  63).  Jesus  answers  affirmatively.  Ac- 
cording to  Matthew  the  multitude  at  the  cross  revile  Jesus 
and  say :  "  If  thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  come  down  from 
the  cross  "  (Mt.  xxvii.  40),  but  in  the  parallel  passages  we 
have  instead  of  the  title  "  Son  of  God,"  ''  the  Christ,  the 
King  of  Israel "  (Mk.  xv.  32),  and  "  the  King  of  the  Jews  " 
(Lk.  xxiii.  37).  Once  more:  Mark  (whom  Matthew  fol- 
lows) ascribes  to  the  centurion  at  the  crucifixion  the  con- 
fession :  "  Truly  this  man  was  a  Son  of  God  "  (Mk.  xv.  39  ,* 
Mt.  xxvii.  54).  If  the  Roman  soldier  used  this  particular 
title,^  he  probably  understood  it  as  meaning  hero  or  demi- 


Such  is  the  usage  in  our  sources.  Before  inquiring  fur- 
ther into  the  import  of  the  title  it  is  necessary  to  examine 
its  historical  origin  and  basis  in  the  Old  Testament. 

We  find  the  title  "sons  of  God"  applied  to  the  follow- 
ing persons   in  the  Old  Testament :    (1)  Angels.     In  a 

1  Luke  ascribes  to  him  the  more  general  expression  :  "  Certainly  this 
was  a  righteous  man  "  (xxiii.  47). 


THE   SOK   OF    GOD  5T 

fragment  of  some  very  ancient  mythology  preserved  in 
Gen.  vi.  1-4,  these  "  sons  of  God  "  are  said  to  have  united 
with  the  daughters  of  men,  —  a  union  from  which  a  race 
of  heroes  was  produced.^  In  Job  i.  6  and  ii.  1  the  "  sons 
of  God  "  are  spoken  of  as  presenting  themselves  before  the 
Lord.     This  may  be  called  a  poetical  use  of  the  term. 

(2)  Magistrates.  In  Ps.  Ixxxii.  the  judges  are  reproved 
for  their  unjust  judgments  and  are  thus  addressed : 

"  I  said  ye  are  gods  (elohim), 
And  all  of  you  sons  of  the  Most  High. 
Nevertheless  ye  shall  die  like  men,"  etc.  (vv.  6,  7). 

Of.  Ex.  xxii.  28 :  "  Thou  shalt  not  revile  elohijn  (R.  V., 
"God";  margin,  "the  judges"),  nor  curse  a  ruler  of  thy 
people."  The  same  use  of  elohim  is  found  in  xxi.  6  and 
xxii.  8.  It  is  quite  certain  that  elohim  is  here  a  collective 
name,  which  was  employed  in  the  oldest  usage  to  denote 
the  tribunal  or  oracle  which  was  established  to  declare  the 
divine  will.^ 

(3)  Individual  Israelites.  "Ye  are  sons  unto  Jehovah 
your  God,"  etc.  "  For  thou  art  an  holy  people  unto  the 
Lord,"  etc.  (Deut.  xiv.  1,  2).  The  title  is  applied  in  Hos. 
i.  10  to  members  of  the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel  who 
should  become  reunited  with  Judah  in  the  common  bless- 
ings of  Jehovah's  covenant :  "  In  the  place  where  it  was 
said  unto  them.  Ye  are  not  my  people,  it  shall  be  said  unto 
them.  Ye  are  the  sons  of  the  living  God." 

(4)  The  theocratic  king  :  "  He  (David)  shall  build  an 
house  for  my  name,  and  I  will  establish  the  throne  of  his 
kingdom  forever.  I  will  be  his  father,  and  he  shall  be 
my  son,"  etc.  (2  Sam.  vii.  14).  Cf.  Ps.  Ixxxix.  27  :  "I 
will  make  him  (the  king  of  Israel)  my  first-born,  +he 
highest  of  the  kings  of  the  earth."     Of.  Ps.  ii.  7  :   "  Jeho- 

1  Cf.  what  Plato  says  in  Cratylns,  33  :  "Do  you  not  know  that  the 
heroes  are  demigods  ?  All  of  them  sprang  either  from  the  love  of  a  god 
for  a  mortal  woman,  or  of  a  mortal  man  for  a  goddess."  For  an  elabo- 
rate discussion  and  full  illustration  of  this  legend  in  antiquity,  see  Lenor- 
mant,  Beginnings  of  History.,  ch.  vii. 

2  LXX. :  TT/Dos  t6  KpiT-qpLov  Tov  Oeov.  See  the  Hebrew  Lexicon  of  Brown, 
Briggs,  and  Driver,  under  DTlbx. 


58  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF    JESUS 

vah  said  unto  me  (the  anointed  king),  Thou  art  my  son  ; 
this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  "  (installed  thee  in  thy 
kingly  office). 

(5)  The  nation  of  Israel :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Israel 
is  my  son,  my  firstborn,"  etc.  (Ex.  iv.  22).  This  relation 
is  still  more  fully  elaborated  in  the  song  of  Moses  (Deut. 
xxii.  6-10). 1 

From  these  examples  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Old  Tes- 
tament idea  of  sonship  to  God  is  that  of  special  nearness 
to  him  —  of  special  endowments  or  privileges  conferred  by 
him.  The  nation,  its  members,  especially  its  king,  bear 
this  name  as  the  chosen  representatives  of  Jehovah  —  the 
special  objects  of  his  providential  favor  and  the  agents  for 
accomplishing  his  will.  A  "  son  of  God  '•  in  the  Old 
Testament  sense  is  one  uniquely  loved,  chosen,  and  en- 
doAved  by  God.  The  title  is  not  used  as  a  specific  desig- 
nation for  the  Messiah,  althougli  the  passages  cited  in  which 
the  ideal  theocratic  king  is  called  Jehovah's  "  son  "  and 
"  first-born,"  point  to  the  appropriateness  with  which  the 
Messiah  might  be  called  par  eminence  ''  the  Son  of 
God."  The  historical  basis  of  such  a  usage  is  undoubtedly 
laid  in  the  Old  Testament.  If  the  head  of  the  nation  is 
in  a  peculiar  sense  God's  son,  with  even  greater  propriety 
may  the  antitypical  king  who  is  to  sit  on  David's  throne 
forever  and  establish  his  kingdom  to  all  generations  be  so 
designated.  In  this  usage  which  we  have  traced,  we  find, 
no  doubt,  the  generic  sense  which  the  title  bears  in  its 
application  to  Jesus,  although  we  may  expect  to  find 
something  distinctive  in  that  application  of  it. 

Among  extra-canonical  Jewish  writings  only  the  Book  of 
Enoch  and  fourth  Esdras  employ  the  title  in  question. 
Examples  of  its  use  are  as  follows  :  (Jehovah  speaks) 
"  For  I  and  my  Son  will  unite  with  them  forever  in  the 
paths  of  uprightness  in  their  lives  ;  and  j^e  will  have 
peace." 2  "For  my  Son,  Messias,  shall  be  revealed  with 
those  that  are  with  him,"  etc.  (4  Es.  vii.  28).  "And  it 
shall  come  to  pass  after  these  years  that  my  Son,  Christ, 

1  See  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy^  pp.  100,  129. 

2  Enoch,  CV.  2. 


THE   SON   OF   GOD  59 

shall  die,"  etc.  (4  Es.  vii.  29).  The  title  is  similarly 
used  several  times  in  chs.  xiii  and  xiv. 

This  usage  is  clearly  a  reproduction  of  that  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  but  with  this  distinctive  feature  that  "my 
Son"  is  here  almost  a  synonym  for  ''Messiah."  Since 
the  Messiah  is  the  special  object  of  Jehovah's  love  and 
favor  he  is  preeminently  his  Son.  This  sonship  to  God 
was  inseparable  from  the  idea  of  messiahship.  Only  one 
who  was  the  Son  of  God  in  a  special  sense  could  be  the 
Messiah.  From  Jewish  usage,  then,  it  appears  that  the  title 
was  in  occasional  use  as  an  approximate  synonj^n  for  "  the 
Messiah."  This  same  relation  between  the  two  terms 
seems  to  exist  in  the  New  Testament  usage.  In  Mat- 
thew's version  of  Peter's  confession  the  two  titles  are 
united  in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate  that  they  are  kindred 
but  not  strictly  synonymous  :  ''  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God"  (Mt.  xvi.  16). ^  The  same  cor- 
relation is  found  in  the  language  of  the  high  priest  :  "Art 
thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed?"  (Mk.  xiv.  61  ; 
cf,  Mt.  xxvi.  63).  In  both  these  cases  the  title  has  an 
official  sound.  It  is  noticeable  how  Jesus  in  speaking  of 
himself  in  both  connections  call  himself  "the  Son  of  man." 
The  title  which  was  closely  allied  to  "  the  Messiah "  he 
carefully  avoided,  except  when  speaking  of  that  inti- 
mate fellowship  which  he  sustained  with  the  Father. 
Jesus  did  indeed  admit  that  the  title  was  applicable  to 
him  in  its  official  sense,  but  in  his  own  spontaneous  use  of 
it  he  denoted  by  it  rather  a  personal  relation  of  fellow- 
ship and  intimacy  with  God.  "  According  to  the  Jewish 
idea"  (which  is  reflected  in  the  two  passages  just  noticed), 
"the  Messianic  king  was  also  'Son  of  God'  ;  according 
to  Jesus'  idea,  'the  Son  of  God'  as  such  was  the  Messianic 
king."  2 

We  now  turn  to  a  more  particular  examination  of  Jesus' 
direct  use  of  the  title  in  its  apj^lication  to  himself  and  to 

1  If  the  shorter  forms,.in  Mark  and  Luke  be  regarded  as  more  original 
than  this,  we  have  still  the  significance  of  the  first  evangelist's  combina- 
tion of  the  titles  to  consider. 

'^  Weudt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II.  133  (orig.  p.  436). 


60  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

others.  The  most  significant  passage  is  one  which  both 
Matthew  and  Luke  have  preserved  from  the  Logia  :  "  All 
things  have  been  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father  :  and 
no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save  the  Father  ;  neither  doth 
any  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever 
the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him  "  (Mt.  xi.  2T  ;  Lk.  x.  22). 
.  Here  Jesus  asserts  in  connection  with  his  sonship  to  God 
a  unique  and  incomparable  knowledge  of  God  and  inti- 
macy with  him.  That  the  sonship  of  Jesus,  as  here 
asserted,  has  in  it  something  distinctive  as  compared  to 
the  sonship  of  other  men,  cannot  be  doubted.  Besides 
the  affirmation  of  an  altogether  exceptional  mutual  knowl- 
edge between  him  and  God,  we  observe  that  God  is  to 
him  tJie  Father  and  he  is  to  God  the  Son  in  an  absolute 
sense.  In  addition  to  these  considerations  it  must  be 
remembered  that  Jesus  never  elsewhere  puts  himself  in 
the  same  category  with  others  when  speaking  of  God's 
fatherhood  or  men's  sonship  to  God.  Is  the  sonship  of 
Jesus  to  God  essentially  different  from  that  of  other  men, 
or  is  it  different  only  in  degree  ;  different  in  the  sense  of 
being  normal  and  perfect  while  theirs  is  but  partially 
realized  in  fact  ? 

This  inquiry  raises  another  question  :  What  constitutes 
men  "  sons  of  God  "  ?  Glorified  spirits  are  said  to  resem- 
"He  the  angels  and  so  to  be  "  sons  of  God,  being  sons  of 
the  resurrection"  (Lk.  xx.  36).  Peacemakers  are  "sons 
of  God  "  (Mt.  V.  9),  and  men  are  required  to  love  all  men, 
even  their  enemies,  in  order  that  they  may  become 
Qyevrjade)  sons  of  their  Father  who  is  in  heaven  (Mt. 
v.  45).  Thus  it  appears  that  conformity  to  God's  will, 
likeness  to  him  in  moral  motives  and  action,  constitutes 
men  sons  of  God.  God  is  perfectly  good  ;  he  blesses  all, 
the  unjust  as  well  as  the  just.  Men  become  sons  of  God 
by  becoming  like  him.  This  likeness  of  men  to  God  in  its 
perfection  would  involve  completeness  of  love  (Mt.  v.  48). 
'  Now  it  is  noticeable  that  other  men  become  sons  of  God  ; 
I  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  without  qualification.  He  does 
not  have  to  attain  this  sonship  by  gradual  or  partial 
Approach,  but  possesses  it  from  the  first.     He  perfectly 


THE   SON   OF    GOD  61 

fulfils  tli^  divine  will,  absolutely  conforms  to  the  divine 
good  pleasure.  He  perfectly  knows  God  as  his  Father  in 
the  most  intimate  and  unbroken  fellowship.  The  title 
Son  is  for  him  rather  personal  than  official ;  as  he  uses  it, 
it  emphasizes  rather  his  relation  to  God  than  his  relation 
to  his  life-work.  In  view  of  these  distinctive  features  of 
Jesus'  language  concerning  his  own  sonship  and  that  of 
other  men,  our  previous  question  recurs  :  Was  his  sonship 
different  from  that  of  other  men  in  degree  only  or  also  in  \ 
kind? 

All  will  admit  that  his  sonship  is  unique  in  the  sense 
that  its  ideal  is  perfectly  realized  in  him,  while  in  others 
it  is  but  partially  fulfilled.  Beyschlag  says  that  there  is 
in  his  sonship  "  a  sublimity  and  uniqueness  of  his  relation 
to  God  which  raises  him  above  all  other  sons  of  men."^ 
He  regards  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  as  proving  that  his 
relation  to  the  Father  is  original,  perfect,  and  absolute, 
and  that  his  sonship  is  thus  perfect  and  absolute,  while 
that  of  others  is  but  partial  and  relative. ^  Wendt  thinks 
that  Jesus  occasionally  "  designated  himself  in  distinction 
from  all  others  as  '  the  Son  of  God '  in  a  preeminent 
sense."  "He  has  thus  regarded  himself  as  'the  Son  of 
God '  Kar  i^oxrjv^  since  he  knew  that  this  mutual  relation 
of  loving  intercourse  subsisted  between  God  and  himself 
in  unique  perfection."  ^ 

Most  recent  scholars  also  agree  that  the  term  "  Son  of 
God"  as  used  in  the  Synoptics  is  primarily  an  ethical  one. 
It  emphasizes  the  perfect  union,  the  absolute  intimacy, 
and  mutual  knowledge  which  subsist  between  the  Father 
and  Jesus.  It  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a  personal  rather  than 
an  official  name.  It  speaks  of  a  relation  sustained  to 
God,  whether  applied  to  J esus  or  to  others.  Ihe  terni 
is  not  used  in  a  metaphysical  sense  as  denoting  commu- 
nity of  essence.  If  the  use  of  the  title  involves  some- 
thing more  than  ethical  union,  it  must  be  by  suggestion 
and  implication,  rather  than  by  direct  assertion.     Those 

1  N.  T.  TJieol.  I.  71  (Bk.  I.  ch.  iii.  §  8). 

2  Leben  Jesu,  pp.  178,  179. 

3  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II.  125,  128  (orig.  pp.  429,  432). 


62  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

who  liold  that  it  implies  no  such  significance  may  fairly 
challenge  their  opponents  to  show  that  it  does.  They 
stand  upon  the  direct  and  primary  reference  of  the  title 
and  may  maintain  that  its  import  is  exclusively  ethical 
until  something  more  is  shown  to  be  involved  in  it. 

It  is  not  strange  that  at  this  point  there  should  be  a 
dividing  of  the  ways.  Wendt,  for  example,  holds  that  the 
language  of  our  sources  does  not  warrant  us  in  ascribing  to 
the  paternal  and  filial  relation  which  Jesus  regarded  as  exist- 
ing between  God  and  himself,  a  character  different  in  princi- 
ple from  the  paternal  and  filial  relation  which,  according  to 
his  teaching,  exists  between  God  and  the  members  of  his 
Kingdom.!  Beyschlag,  after  reviewing  the  passage,  says 
very  emphatically:  "All  these  facts  make  it  so  certain 
that  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  was  at  bottom  purely 
human,  that  only  an  unconquerable  dogmatic  prejudice, 
springing  from  scholastic  tradition  and  misunderstanding 
of  what  religion  requires,  can  resist  the  force  of  this  testi- 
mony." ^  He  maintains  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  and  the 
absolute  ethical  uniqueness  of  his  relation  to  God,  but 
asserts  that  the  notion  that  these  facts  involve  a  con- 
sciousness of  preexistence  or  any  character  transcending 
human  perfection  is  "  a  very  curious  error,"  through  fall- 
ing into  which  Paul  and  John  started  the  Church  on  a 
wrong  path  in  the  development  of  theology. 

A  widely  different  conclusion  is  drawn  by  Reuss. 
After  discussing  the  title  "Son  of  God,"  he  concludes 
that  the  relationship  which  it  emphasizes  is,  indeed,  ethi- 
cal. But  he  adds  that  its  use  necessarily  gives  rise  to 
further  reflection.  "  In  other  words,"  he  continues,  "  this 
moral  relation,  if  it  is  really  such  as  we  have  just  de- 
cribed,  does  not  explain  itself,  nor  is  it  explained,  by  any 
analogies  supplied  by  the  history  of  man.  We  are  neces- 
sarily led  to  regard  it  as  the  manifestation  of  a  metaphysi- 
cal relation  of  a  much  higher  order,  and  absolutely  beyond 
the  reach  of  any  analogy  our  world  can  furnish."^    Reuss 

1  Teaching  of  Jesus,  IT.  124  (orig.  p.  429). 

2  iV.  T.  Theol.  I.  75  (Bk.  I.  ch.  iii.  §  10). 

s  Hist.  Christ.  Theol  I.  202  (orig.  I.  234,  235). 


THE   SON   OF   GOD  63 

concludes  that  the  apostolic  theology  was  a  legitimate 
development  from  Jesus'  self-testimony  as  given  in  the 
Synoptics. 

In  an  elaborate  article  on  "  The  Formation  and  Con- 
tent of  the  Messianic  Consciousness  of  Jesus,"  ^  Hermann 
Schmidt  has  discussed  the  view  maintained  by  Bej^schlag 
that  the  Synoptic  representation  does  not  carry  us 
beyond  an  ethical  human  perfection  in  Jesus.  He 
mainttiins  that  we  cannot  free  ourselves  thus  from  meta- 
physical considerations  in  treating  of  this  subject,  so 
long  as  we  deal  earnestly  with  the  fact  of  Jesus'  sinless- 
ness.  It  is  futile,  argues  Schmidt,  to  assert  the  ethical 
perfection  of  Jesus,  and  then  leave  it  unexplained  and  in- 
explicable. Jesus'  consciousness  of  his  sinlessness  and  of 
the  perfect  realization  in  himself,  of  the  moral  ideal,  is  not 
accounted  for  unless  a  fundamental  and  permanent  dis- 
tinction between  himself  and  other  men  is  recognized. 
"The  ethical  as  such  is  always  mediated  through  the 
will ;  now  there  meets  us  in  a  race  in  which  all  others  are 
in  themselves  incapable  of  reaching  the  right  relation  of 
sonship,  a  personality  which  not  only  can  of  itself  become^ 
but  from  the  first  zs,  what,  in  case  of  others,  can  only  be 
attained  through  aid  from  Avithout,  so  that  the  conclusion 
cannot  be  avoided  that  a  peculiar  essence,  a  specific  nature, 
and,  indeed,  one  that  is  not  mediated  through  the  will,  lies 
at  its  basis ;  that  is,  that  the  life  of  Jesus  has  a  distinc- 
tively metaphysical  background."  ^ 

We  must,  of  course,  draw  a  line  very  carefully  between 
the  precise  meaning  of  our  passages  as  determined  by  exe- 
gesis and  inferences,  however  natural,  which  are  derived 
from  that  meaning.  But  we  must  also  admit  that  the  exe- 
getical  result,  in  the  case  before  us,  raises  a  problem  re- 
specting the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  with  which  the  mind 
cannot  decline  to  deal.  As  Son  of  God  Jesus  stands  in  a 
unique  relation  to  the  Father.  The  title  involves  his  ethi- 
cal perfection.  Now  we  cannot  simply  stop  short  with 
these  assertions ;  to  do  so  is  to  decline  the  problem  to 

1  Studien  u.  Krltiken,  1889,  p.  423  sq. 

2  Oj).  at.,  435. 


64  THE  SYNOPTIC   TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

which  this  uniqueness  gives  rise.  Why  was  Jesus  the  only- 
sinless  man  ?  Was  his  sinlessness  an  accident  ?  Why  has 
it  never  been  repeated?  If,  as  is  admitted,  he  possessed 
the  clear  consciousness  of  sinlessness,  what  is  the  explana- 
tion of  so  exceptional  and  marvellous  a  fact?  We  are  told 
that  his  consciousness  of  perfect  union  with  God  and  of 
sinless  perfection  was  "  purely  human  " ;  if  so,  it  still  de- 
mands some  explanation  which  the  representatives  of  this 
view  have  not  given  and  make  no  effort  to  furnish. 

It  is  open  to  the  radical  theologian  to  say  that  the 
positing  of  a  metaphysical  union  with  God  as  the  basis  of 
the  unique  consciousness  and  character  of  Jesus  is  a  sub- 
sequent explanation  which  Paul  and  John  have  given. 
But  it  is  an  explanation,  and  the  mere  assertion  that  Jesus' 
consciousness  was  "purely  human"  is  not.  It  is,  more- 
over, an  explanation  which  these  apostles  base  upon  the 
teaching  and  life  of  Jesus  as  they  knew  them.  Were  they 
right  or  wrong?  This  is  the  dilemma  into  which  the 
problem  resolves,  and  beyond  this  we  shall  not  follow  it  at 
present.  The  testimony  of  the  fourth  Gospel  has  but  a 
relative  historical  value  for  Wendt,  who  holds  that  it  was 
composed  by  a  post-apostolic  writer  who  merely  incorpo- 
rated into  it  Johannine  memoranda.  For  Beyschlag,  how- 
ever, who  holds  the  genuineness  of  this  Gospel,  the  case 
stands  somewhat  differently.  His  conclusion  that  Jesus' 
sonship  to  God  was  exclusively  ethical,  and  that  his  con- 
sciousness was  "  purely  human,"  will  be  submitted  to  the 
tests  of  exegesis  in  the  study  of  the  Gospel  of  John. 

It  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  my  present  purpose 
to  pursue  the  subject  into  the  field  of  doctrinal  theology. 
I  have  thought  it  proper,  however,  to  point  out  that  even 
the  language  of  the  Logia  and  of  Mark  does  raise  a  great 
problem  respecting  the  inner  consciousness  of  Jesus,  and 
that  theology  is  bound  to  deal  with  that  problem.  The 
apostles  and,  following  them,  the  theology  of  the  Church, 
have  presented  a  solution  of  it;  it  is  incumbent  on  those 
who  deny  the  legitimacy  of  this  solution  to  furnish  another 
and  a  better  one. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   FATHERHOOD  OF  GOD 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  God  rests  upon  an 
Old  Testament  basis.  In  contrast  to  the  pantheistic  and 
polytheistic  systems  which  prevailed  among  ancient  ori- 
ental nations,  Jesus  adhered  to  the  Jewish  conception  of 
Jehovah  as  the  one  only  God,  the  Almighty  Creator  and 
Lord  of  all.  He  emphasized  the  spirituality  and  holiness 
of  God.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  the  ethical  monothe- 
ism of  Israelitish  religion,  elevated,  enriched,  and  purified. 
There  is  nothing  in  his  doctrine  for  which  the  Old  Testa- 
ment does  not  supply  a  beginning  and  basis. 

It  would  not,  however,  be  correct  to  suppose  that  Jesus.^^^ 
added  nothing  to  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  God.  True 
to  his  principle  that  he  had  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfil  (Mt.  V.  17),  he  cleared  away  from  the  foundations 
which  had  been  laid  in  the  earlier  stages  of  revelation 
what  was  temporary  and  inadequate,  and  reared  upon 
them  a  permanent  structure.  He  illustrated  the  maxim 
which  he  commended  to  his  followers  when  he  said  that 
the  representatives  of  his  truth  and  Kingdom  would  bring 
out  of  their  treasures  things  new  and  old  (Mt.  xiii.  52). 
This  fulfilling  of  the  idea  of  God  did  not  consist  in  sup- 
plying foreign  elements,  but  in  developing,  expanding, 
and  clarifying  the  germs  of  doctrine  which  the  Jewish 
people  already  possessed,  and  especially  in  rescuing  their 
idea  from  certain  prevalent  misapplications  and  false 
inferences. 

It  would  not  have  accorded  with  the  genius  of  Jesus' 
teaching  for  him  to  give  any  direct  and  formal  instruction 
concerning  the  nature  of  God.  He  does  not  aim  to  define 
God;  he  rather  describes  how  he  acts.     His  teaching  is 

F  65 


6Q  THE    SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF    JESUS 

not  abstract,  but  concrete.  In  apotliegm  and  parable  he 
pictures  how  God  feels,  and  what  God  does  in  certain 
conditions.  He  aims  to  rescue  the  idea  of  God  from  the 
realm  of  cold  and  powerless  abstraction,  and  to  make  it  a 
practical,  living  power  in  the  heart.  Jesus  sought  to  in- 
spire in  men  an  intense  and  constant  sense  of  God's  pres- 
ence and  care.  Hence  he  did  not  speak  of  the  attributes 
of  God,  but  unfolded  his  character  and  set  forth  its  relation 
to  human  life.  It  was  not  so  much  the  terminology  of 
Jesus  which  was  new ;  it  was  the  way  in  which  he  filled 
old  terms  with  new  meaning  by  taking  them  into  the 
field  of  character.  When,  for  instance,  he  spoke  of  God's 
fatherhood,  he  showed  by  what  he  said  about  it  that  it 
meant  for  hira  a  certain  disposition  of  God  towards  men  — 
a  way  of  feeling  and  acting  towards  them,  and  involved  a 
corresponding  attitude  and  action  on  man's  part  towards 
him. 

In  speaking  of  God,  Jesus  mainly  employed  two  titles. 
King  and  Father.  The  former  is  but  infrequently  used. 
It  is,  indeed,  a  noticeable  fact  that  although  he  spoke  so 
often  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  he  seldom  spoke  of  God  as 
King.  It  is,  however,  quite  consonant  with  the  principles 
which  Ave  have  just  noticed,  that  Jesus  did  not  discard 
this  current  Old  Testament  designation  of  Jehovah.  He 
referred,  quite  in  the  spirit  of  Is.  Ixvi.  1,  to  the  exaltation 
of  God  on  his  heavenly  throne,  and  described  Jerusalem  as 
"the  city  of  the  great  King"  (Mt.  v.  35).  It  is  Jehovah 
in  his  mode  of  dealing  with  men  who  is  pictured  in  the 
parables  of  the  Unmerciful  Servant  (Mt.  xviii.  23  sq.}  and 
of  the  Marriage  Feast  (Mt.  xxii.  2  s^.),  both  of  which 
begin :  "  The  Kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  unto  a  cer- 
tain king."  This  quite  incidental  and  indirect  recogni- 
tion of  the  kingship  of  God  is  to  be  supplemented  by  such 
recognitions  of  the  divine  power  and  sovereignty  as  are 
involved  in  the  title,  "Lord  of  heaven  and  earth"  (Mt. 
xi.  25),  and  in  the  frequent  ascription  to  God  of  bound- 
less prerogative  and  power  (Mk.  x.  27 ;  xii.  24 ;  xiv.  36 ; 
Mt.  X.  28). 
\But  Jesus'  characteristic  name  for  God  was  "Father." 


THE   FATHERHOOD    OF   GOD  67 

He  not  only  spoke  of  God  as  his  own  Father,  but  as  the 
Father  of  menx  In  this  too  he  built  upon  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, although  greatly  elevating  and  widening  its  idea. 
"Father"  was  not  indeed  the  prevalent  designation  of 
God  in  Israel.  It  is  not  found,  for  example,  in  the  Jews' 
book  of  devotion,  the  Psalms,  although  in  one  place  God 
is  there  likened  to  a  Father  (Ps.  ciii.  13).i  The  prevailing 
name  for  God  is  "  King  "  ;  e.g. :  "  my  King  and  my  God  " 
(Ps.  V.  2) ;  "  The  Lord  of  hosts  is  the  King  of  glory " 
(Ps.  xxiv.  10)  ;  and  men  are  often  described  as  the  King's 
"servants"  (Ps.  xxvii.  9;  xxxi.  16). 

In  the  Old  Testament  God's  fatherhood  designates  a 
special  relation,  which  he  sustains  to  the  Jewish  people. 
This  idea  finds  frequent  expression  in  the  prophets.  The 
deliverance  of  the  nation  from  Egypt  was  the  favor  of  a 
Father  to  a  child:  "When  Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved 
him,  and  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt"  (Hos.  xi.  1).  The 
sin  of  the  people  is  often  pictured  as  the  disobedience  of 
children  towards  their  Father:  "I  have  nourished  and 
brought  up  children,  and  they  have  rebelled  against  me  " 
(Is.  i.  2).  Sometimes  the  idea  of  fatherhood  is  rather  in- 
directly suggested  than  directly  asserted,  and  God  is  com- 
pared to  an  earthly  father  in  his  tenderness  or  his  severity: 
"The  Lord  thy  God  bare  thee  as  a  man  doth  bare  his  son" 
(Deut.  i.  31) ;  "  As  a  man  chasteneth  his  son,  so  the  Lord 
thy  God  chasteneth  thee  "  (Deut.  viii.  5). 

In  general,  the  fatherhood  of  God  to  Israel  denotes  his 
gracious  interest  in  the  nation  and  the  providential  care 
which  he  exercises  over  it  in  making  it  the  vehicle  of  his 
revelation  and  in  preparing  it  to  be  his  agent  for  ushering 
in  the  Messiah.  "Is  Ephraim  (the  northern  kingdom)  my 
dear  son  ?  is  he  a  pleasant  child  ?  for  as  often  as  I  speak 
against  him,  I  do  earnestly  remember  him  still :  therefore 
my  heart  is  stirred  for  him;  I  will  surely  have  mercy  upon 
him,  saith  the  Lord"  (Jer.  xxxi.  20).  The  exilic  Isaiah 
lifting  up  a  plaintive  voice  from  the  midst  of  the  nation's 
disasters,  dwells  upon  the  comforting  assurance  that,  even 

1  "  Like  as  ca  Father  pitieth  his  children, 
So  the  Lord  pitieth  them  that  fear  him." 


68  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

if  the  people's  ancestors  (who  are  apparently  regarded  as  a 
species  of  patron  saints)  should  cease  the  care  for  them, 
Jehovah  will  not  forget  them:  "For  thou  art  our  Father, 
though  Abraham  knoweth  us  not,  and  Israel  doth  not  ac- 
knowledge us:  thou,  O  Lord,  art  our  Father;  our  Re- 
deemer from  everlasting  is  thy  name"  (Is.  Ixiii.  16).  Cf. 
Mai.  ii.  10 :  "  Have  we  not  all  one  Father?"  etc. 

According  to  this  idea  of  God's  fatherhood  it  was  natural 
that  Jehovah  should  be  especially  described  as  Father  to 
the  theocratic  king,  the  head  and  representative  of  the  na- 
tion, and  the  type  of  the  Messianic  King,  who  should  be 
preeminently  God's  Son  and  who  should  reign  forever. 
The  prophet  Nathan,  speaking  on  behalf  of  Jehovah  to 
David  the  king,  tells  him  that  a  descendant  of  his  shall 
build  Jehovah's  house,  and  adds :  "  I  will  be  his  Father, 
and  he  shall  be  my  son"  (2  Sam.  vii.  14).  A  similar 
idea  meets  us  in  Ps.  Ixxxix.  26,  27,  where  the  theocratic 
king  is  described  as  confessing  Jehovah  to  be  his  Father, 
and  Jehovah  as  declaring  him  to  be  his  first-born  son,  the 
highest  of  the  kings  of  the  earth. 

What  we  observe,  then,  in  this  Old  Testament  idea  of 
fatherhood  is  that  it  was  special  rather  than  universal,  and 
that  it  had  not  yet  become  the  determining  conception 
of  God's  character.  God's  attitude  towards  Israel  was 
fatherly,  but  it  was  not  yet  seen  that  he  is,  in  his  very 
essence,  fatherly  love,  and  that  all  men  are  the  objects  of 
his  care  and  compassion.  The  legal  idea  of  God  was  still 
the  dominant  one.  Power  and  transcendence  were  the 
attributes  most  emphasized.  The  recognition  of  these 
was  right  and  important,  but  it  was  liable  to  a  one-sided 
development,  and  such  a  development  it  received,  espe- 
cially in  the  later  Judaism.  The  legalism  and  the  ritual- 
ism of  the  later  Jewish  period  sprang,  in  great  measure, 
from  the  failure  of  the  people  to  complement  the  truth  of 
God's  kingly  power  with  the  truth  of  his  fatherly  love. 
Legal  subjection,  expressing  itself  in  rites  which  were 
thought  to  pay  honor  to  God's  transcendent  majesty, 
rather  than  filial  reverence  and  moral  obedience,  was  the 
dominant  note  of  Pharisaic  piety. 


THE   FATHERHOOD   OF   GOD  69 

We  have  already  seen  in  examining  the  title  "Son 
of  God,"  how  frequently  Jesus  speaks  of  God  as  his  own 
Father,  and  that  he  appears  to  assume  some  distinction 
between  the  relation  of  the  Father  to  himself  and  that  to 
which  he  refers  when  he  speaks  of  God  as  the  Father  of 
other  men.  It  is  with  this  latter  relation  only  that  we 
have  now  to  do. 

The  first  question  which  meets  us  is,  whether  or  not 
Jesus  represents  God  as  the  Father  of  all  men.  The 
answer  to  this  question  must  be  involved  in  the  effort 
to  determine  in  precisely  what  sense  Jesus  used  the 
term  "Father."  It  might  be  used  to  denote  that  com- 
plaisant love  which  God  has  for  the  obedient,  but  which 
cannot  be  felt  towards  the  wilful  sinner.  Many  have 
held  that  Jesus  uses  it  in  this  sense,  and  that  he  speaks 
of  God  as  Father  only  in  relation  to  believers  or  the 
righteous. 

It  is  a  fact  that  the  prevailing  usage  of  Jesus,  according 
to  our  sources,  is  to  speak  of  God  as  the  Father  of  his 
own  disciples.  Of  this  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  presents 
ample  evidence.  The  discourse  is  indeed  a  collection  of 
sayings  uttered  at  various  times  and  places,  but  it  is  rep- 
resented as  spoken  to  the  disciples,  and  there  is  no  critical 
ground  for  doubt  that  at  least  the  earlier  portions  were  so 
spoken.  Addressing  his  disciples,  he  says :  "Let  your  light 
shine,  and  so  glorify  your  Father  "  (Mt.  v.  16) ;  "  Love  your 
enemies,  that  ye  may  be  the  sons  of  your  Father  "  (v.  45) ; 
"  Be  complete  in  love,  as  your  heavenly  Father  is"  (v.  48) ; 
"  Pray  sincerely,  and  your  Father  will  reward  you  "  (vi.  4,  6, 
8) ;  and  in  this  connection  he  teaches  his  disciples  to  pray, 
beginning :  "  Our  Father  " ;  cf.  vi.  18,  26,  32.  The  usage  is 
the  same  in  other  connections.  In  teaching  his  disciples 
humility,  Jesus  warns  them  against  the  danger  of  losing 
the  spirit  of  equality  and  fraternity,  and  enforces  the 
warning  by  saying :  "  For  one  is  your  Father  who  is  in 
heaven"  (Mt.  xxiii.  9).  Mark  has  preserved  this  saying, 
addressed  to  the  disciples :  "  And  whensoever  ye  stand 
praying,  forgive,  if  ye  have  aught  against  any  one :  that 
your  Father  also  who  is  in  heaven  may  forgive  you  your 


YO  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

trespasses"  (xi.  25) .^  In  addition  to  the  many  examples 
of  this  usage,  already  cited,  which  the  first  evangelist  has 
derived  from  the  Logia,  Luke  has  preserved  one  saying, 
omitted  by  Matthew,  which  bears  the  mark  of  originality : 
"  Fear  not,  little  flock ;  for  it  is  your  Father's  good  pleas- 
ure to  give  you  the  Kingdom"  (xii.  32). 

It  must  also  be  admitted  that  there  is  no  passage  in  our 
sources  in  which  Jesus  explicitly  speaks  of  God  as  the 
Father  of  all  men.  From  this  it  is  easy  to  draw  the  in- 
ference that  the  fatherhood  of  God  is  to  be  understood 
in  the  limited  sense,  and  denotes  God's  favor  towards  the 
obedient.  I  believe,  however,  that  this  conclusion  is  quite 
unwarranted.  The  fatherhood  of  God  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  is  neither  mere  creatorship,  nor  is  it  merely  a  name 
for  the  attitude  of  approval  or  complaisance  which  corre- 
sponds to  obedience  and  goodness  on  the  part  of  men.  It 
denotes  rather  the  gracious  loving  attitude  of  God  towards 
all  men.  God  is  Father  to  all  men,  not  merely  because  he 
made  all  men,  but  because  he  made  them  for  himself  and 
kindred  to  himself,  and  because  they  are  capable  of  realiz- 
ing the  sonship  to  him  which  corresponds  to  his  father- 
hood. His  fatherhood  embraces  his  universal  benevolence. 
Let  us  test  this  view  by  reference  to  the  passages  which 
bear  upon  it. 

Jesus  teaches  his  disciples  to  love  all  men,  even  their 
enemies.  In  so  doing  they  show  themselves  to  be  sons  of 
God,  that  is,  like  God ;  "  for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on 
the  evil  and  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and 
unjust"  (Mt.  V.  45).  Here  the  argument  is  simply  this: 
Sonship  to  God  consists  in  moral  likeness  to  the  Father; 
love  all  men,  whether  good  or  bad,  for  that  is  what  the 
Father  does.  How  plain  it  is  that  it  is  as  the  Father  that 
God  loves  and  blesses  all;  that  his  fatherhood  is  the 
ground  and  source  of  this  boundless  beneficence.  Yet  it 
is  also  quite  clear  that  beneficence  is  not  the  whole  mean- 
ing of  fatherhood.  God  sustains  the  relation  of  Father 
only  to  personal,  moral  beings.    Jesus  says  to  his  disciples : 

1  In  Matthew  this  passage,  in  a  slightly  changed  form,  is  appended  as 
a  comment  or  explanation  to  the  Lord's  prayer  (vi.  14,  15). 


THE   FATHERHOOD    OF   GOD  71 

It  is  your  Father,  not  theirs^  who  feeds  the  birds  (Mt.  vi. 
26).  God's  fatherhood  includes  a  personal  ethical  relation, 
as  well  as  the  disposition  of  benevolence.  It  can  exist 
only  where  the  correlative  sonship  may  also  exist.  God's 
essential  self-imparting  goodness  and  man's  creation  in 
God's  moral  image  are  the  two  fundamental  elements  of 
God's  fatherhood,  and  they  unite  to  give  it  the  note  of 
universality.  God's  universal  fatherhood  is  grounded 
both  in  what  he  is  and  in  what  he  has  made  man  to  be. 
He  must  be  the  Father  of  all  men,  because  he  is  perfect  in 
love  (Mt.  V.  48),  and  love  is  at  once  the  sum  of  his  in- 
herent moral  perfections,  the  motive  of  creation,  and  the 
basis  of  man's  kinship  to  him.^ 

The  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  proceeds  upon  the 
truth  of  God's  fatherhood.  This  significance  does  not 
depend  merely  upon  the  fact  that  Jesus  pictures  the  atti- 
tude of  God  towards  men  by  describing  the  action  of  a 
human  father.  In  other  parables  God  is  represented  by 
a  king  and  by  a  householder.  It  is  the  co7itent  of  the 
parable,  rather  than  its  /orm,  which  makes  it  a  picture  of 
God's  fatherhood.  Its  purpose  is  to  set  forth  the  divine 
compassion  towards  the  undeserving.  The  obedient  son 
is  the  type  of  the  loyal  Jewish  religionist ;  the  wayward 
son  is  the  type  of  the  lost  and  despised  sinner.  The 
parable  shows  how  God  seeks  to  save  the  lost;  how  he 
calls,  not  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance.  He 
does  not  deal  witli  men  in  mere  retributive  justice,  but  in 
abounding  generosity.  The  parable  is  a  picture  of  the 
divine  grace.  It  uses  the  relations  of  the  human  family 
for  its  purpose,  —  the  most  natural  and  appropriate  rela- 
tions which  it  could  use,  —  but  it  is  the  truth  of  God's  love 
and  pity  for  even  the  worst  of  men  which  makes  it  a  les- 

1  An  unwarranted  appeal  in  proof  of  Jesus'  universal  conception  of 
God's  fatherhood  is  sometimes  made  to  Mt.  xxiii.  1-9:  "Then  spake 
Jesus  to  the  multitudes  and  to  his  disciples,  .  .  .  One  is  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."  But  apart  from  the  fact  that  "Father"  (Abba)  is 
here  used  in  a  technical  sense,  as  a  teacher's  title  denoting  a  source  of 
authority,  it  is  evident  from  the  context  that  the  words,  "One  is  your 
Father"  are  parallel  to,  "One  is  your  master,  even  the  Christ,"  and 
were  addressed  to  his  disciples. 


72  THE  SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

son  in  the  meaning  of  the  divine  fatherhood.  The  same 
lesson  is  taught,  however,  by  other  analogies  in  other  para- 
bles and  in  various  forms  of  speech  which  are  not  para- 
bolic. The  divine  fatherhood  is  the  divine  love  seeking 
to  bring  men  into  that  fellowship  with  God  of  which  they 
were  made  capable  and  for  which  they  are  destined.^ 

We  cannot  doubt  that  in  the  thought  of  Jesus  God  is 
the  Father  of  all  men.  Does  it  follow  that  all  men  are 
sons  of  God?  In  other  words,  are  the  terms  "Father"  and 
"son  of  God,"  used  in  strict  correlation?  We  find  on 
examination  that  this  is  not  the  fact.  God  is  always  lov- 
ing and  gracious,  whatever  men  may  be.  His  fatherhood 
cannot  be  impaired.  He  always  remains,  if  we  may  so 
speak,  what  he  ought  to  be ;  he  always  corresponds  per- 
fectly to  his  idea.  With  men,  however,  this  is  not  the 
case.  Ideally  and  in  possibility  all  men  are,  indeed,  sons 
of  God.  But  men  are  not  actually  what  they  are  ideally. 
The  correlation  between  God's  fatherhood  and  man's  son- 
ship  should  be  perfect;  but  on  account  of  sin  it  is  not 
so.  On  man's  side  the  true  relation  which  "  fatherhood  " 
and  "sonship"  express  has  been  impaired  by  sin.  God 
is  the  Father  of  all  men,  since  he,  on  his  side,  always 
remains  what  he  ought  to  be ;  but  men  must  become  sons 
of  God  (in  the  true  sense  of  moral  kinship  to  God)  because 
their  side  of  the  relation  has  been  impaired,  and  it  is  by 
a  change  in  them  that  this  relation  of  fellowship  and  like- 
ness must  be  restored.  Hence  our  sources  speak  only  of 
the  obedient  as  sons  of  God  in  the  true  sense  of  sonship. 
Others  have  forfeited  their  proper  sonship  by  sin,  although 
it  is  still  theirs  by  right  and  possibility,  but  they  regain  it 
only  by  repentance  and  return  to  God  in  obedience  and 
love.  In  other  words,  Jesus  does  not  designate  as  sonship 
the  kinship  of  nature  which  all  men  have  with  God,  but 

1  "Fatherhood  is  love,  original  and  underived,  anticipating  and  unde- 
served, forgiving  and  educating,  communicating  and  drawing  to  its  heart. 
Jesus  felt,  conceived,  and  revealed  God  as  this  love  which  —  itself  per- 
sonal —  applies  to  every  child  of  man.  That  he  really  desired  to  charac- 
terize the  eternal  heart  of  God  in  this  way  as  the  prototype  of  the  human 
father's  heart,  is  shown  by  his  own  express  comparison  between  the  two  " 
(Mt.  vii.  11).    Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theol.  I.  82  (Bk.  I.  ch.  iv.  §  2). 


THE   FATHERHOOD   OF   GOD  73 

reserves  that  term  to  express  the  closer  spiritual  relation 
which  is  constituted  by  faith  and  obedience.  This  dis- 
tinction underlies  the  language  of  the  S jnoptists  as  clearly 
as  it  is  stated  in  the  fourth  Gospel  (i.  12):  "As  many 
as  received  him^  to  them  gave  he  the  right  (or  privilege) 
to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on 
his  name." 

This  same  conception  of  God's  fatherhood  and  of  man's 
true  sonship  to  God  is  presented  in  the  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son.  Of  both  the  sons  God  is  the  Father ;  but 
the  younger  son  forfeits  by  disobedience  and  ingratitude 
his  true  filial  standing.  As  he  himself  expresses  it,  he  is 
"  no  more  worthy  to  be  called  "  a  son.  In  the  true  moral 
sense  he  is  not  what  a  son  should  be.  The  natural  relation 
to  his  Father,  however,  still  remains  as  the  possible  basis  for 
the  reconstitution  of  the  true  relation  of  obedience  and 
fellowship.  He  is  a  son  in  possibility  still ;  nothing  can 
ever  make  it  untrue  that  he  was  born  in  his  Father's  house 
and  that  he  has  a  right  to  his  Father's  bounty  as  soon  as  he 
is  willing  on  his  part  to  fulfil  his  side  of  the  relation.  If 
he  has  lost  the  rights  and  dignity  of  sonship,  he  has  lost 
them  by  his  own  unfilial  life,  and  they  belong  to  him,  and 
may  be  his  as  soon  as  he  will  "arise  and  go  to  his  Father," 
and  in  penitence  and  obedience  seek  his  favor  and  blessing. 
God  is  the  Father  of  all  men ;  in  the  sense  of  kinship  of 
nature  to  God  all  men  are  sons  of  God ;  but,  in  the  higher 
sense  in  which  Jesus  used  the  word,  they  only  are  sons  of 
God  who  seek  to  fulfil  their  true  relation  to  God  by  obe- 
dience to  his  will,  and  ethical  likeness  to  him.  The  father- 
hood of  God  and  the  sonship  of  men  to  God  find  their 
point  of  union  in  the  fact  that  both  terms  refer  to  moral 
character,  the  fatherhood  denoting  God's  perfect  goodness, 
the  sonship  man's  likeness  to  God.  Both  describe  the  cor- 
respondence of  the  beings  to  which  they  are  applied  to 
their  idea.  The  two  terms  are  therefore  ideally  correla- 
tive, and  this  ideal  correlation  is  the  basis  of  an  actual  cor- 
relation which  is  realized  in  proportion  as  man  fulfils  his 
true  destiny. 

Other  terms  than  that  of  Father  are  used  in  our  sources 


74  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF    JESUS 

to  designate  the  ethical  nature  of  God,  but  they  point  to 
no  different  conception  of  the  divine  character  from  that 
which  we  have  reached.  God  is  called  perfect,  complete 
(reXeio?,  Mt.  v.  48),  but  it  is  clear  from  the  context  that 
this  perfection  is  perfection  of  love.  God  is  complete  in 
love  in  that  he  bestows  his  blessings  generously  and  with- 
out partiality  upon  all.  Men  are  not  thus  complete.  Even 
the  best  of  them  are  inclined  to  do  good  only  to  those  Avho 
do  good  to  them;  to  salute  only  those  who  salute  them 
(Mt.  V.  46,  47).  Thus  love  becomes  only  a  slightly  en- 
larged selfishness.  Earthly  parents  may,  indeed,  be  good 
to  their  children  and  delight  to  give  them  good  gifts,  yet 
their  interest  and  sympathy  for  others  are  likely  to  remain 
extremely  limited.  Jesus  is  obliged  to  say  of  them  that 
with  all  their  generosity  and  affection,  they  are  still  "  evil  " 
(jrovr^pol  ovTe^,  Mt.  vii.  11)  ;  that  is,  they  realize  the  life  of 
love  but  imperfectly.  The  best  of  human  love  is  often  the 
operation  of  an  impulse  or  instinct,  rather  than  an  intelli- 
gent choice  distinctly  adopted  by  the  Avill,  and  applied  to 
all  the  motives  and  ends  of  action.  God,  on  the  contrary, 
is  complete  in  love.  He  seeks  the  true  good  of  all  beings. 
His  action  towards  men  varies  with  their  conditions  and 
characters,  but  it  is  always  action  which  is  best  adapted  to 
promote  the  ends  of  holy  love. 

God  is  also  called  good  (a'yaOo^).  In  the  narrative  con- 
cerning the  man  who  came  to  Jesus  and  said :  "  Good 
Master,  what  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life  ?  "  Jesus  is 
said  to  have  replied:  "  Why  callest  thou  me  good?  None 
is  good,  save  one,  even  God  "  (Mk.  x.  17, 18 ;  cf.  Lk.  xviii. 
18,  19;  Mt.  xix.  16,  17).  The  import  of  the  conversation 
hinges  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  good.  The  questioner 
had  used  it  quite  lightly,  applying  it  to  Jesus  as  a  compli- 
ment, or,  at  most,  as  a  common  designation  of  respect.^ 

1  In  saying  this  I  am  assuming,  with  most  critics  {e.g.  Meyer,  Weiss, 
Wendt,  Holtzmann),  that  the  form  of  the  question  given  by  Mark  and 
Luke  :  "  Good  Master,  what  shall  I  do,"  etc.  ?  is  the  original,  as  against 
Matthew's  :  "  What  good  thing  shall  I  do,"  etc.  ?  Matthew's  form  of  the 
question  seems  very  natural  in  view  of  what  we  know  of  the  Jewish  ideas 
of  virtue,  and  it  seems  to  lead  naturally  to  Jesus'  counter-question.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  quite  easy  to  see  how  the  more  concrete  form  of  the 


THE   FATHERHOOD   OF   GOD  75 

Jesus  takes  up  the  word  and  carries  it  at  once  into  a  region 
far  above  that  in  which  his  questioner's  mind  had  ever  pur- 
sued it.  It  is  as  if  he  had  said :  "  You  use  the  word  good  ; 
do  you  reflect  what  depths  of  meaning  are  in  that  word? 
it  is  a  name  for  the  very  perfection  of  God."  The  aim  of 
Jesus  was  to  heighten  the  man's  idea  of  goodness.  It  had 
always  been  for  him,  as  the  sequel  showed,  a  round  of  out- 
ward actions  technically  called  religious.  Jesus  would  show 
him  what  the  ethical  ideal  of  perfect  goodness  is  —  the 
very  nature  of  God  himself.  Hence  Jesus  himself  declines 
the  epithet.  He  is  himself  passing  through  the  process  of 
human  development.  This  process  can  reach  its  perfection 
only  in  its  end.  Hence  good  in  the  absolute  sense  —  in 
the  sense  which  excludes  all  becoming  —  can  be  predicated 
only  of  God.  All  others  become  good  by  the  increasing 
realization  in  their  lives  of  ethical  likeness  to  God.  He 
alone  is  absolutely  good,  the  eternally  ethically  perfect 
Being.  His  nature  alone  is  the  source  and  seat  of  all 
truth,  law,  and  perfection. 

conversation  which  Mark  and  Luke  have  preserved  could  easily  he  cast 
into  the  more  abstract  form  which  Matthew  has.  A  certain  abruptness  in 
Jesus'  mounting  at  once  from  a  complimentary  title  to  the  concept  of  the 
divine  perfection  is  avoided  by  making  the  "young  man's"  question 
abstract  and  general.  This,  then,  is  one  of  the  cases  in  the  field  of  the 
higher  criticism  where  the  well-known  maxim  of  the  lower  criticism 
obtains:  Lectio  difficilior princixmtum  tenet. 


CHAPTER  VII 

GOOD  AND  EVIL   SPIRITS 

It  would  be  a  matter  of  great  interest,  if  it  were  practi- 
cable, to  construct  in  thought  the  world  as  Jesus  conceived 
it.  But  we  have  only  scanty  materials  for  so  doing.  He 
did  not  discourse  upon  nature  or  history.  The  fields  of 
philosophy  and  science  lay  outside  the  scope  of  his  teach- 
ing and  work.  His  references  to  subjects  which  lie  within 
these  fields  are  quite  incidental.  They  are  made  in  popu- 
lar language  and  embody  the  popular  conceptions  which 
were  prevalent  in  his  time.  He  spoke  very  often  of  natu- 
ral phenomena  —  of  the  sun  rising,  the  clouds  threatening 
rain,  the  seed  sprouting ;  of  the  lily's  beauty,  the  care  of 
vines  and  trees,  the  culture  of  the  soil,  the  habits  of  animals, 
the  qualities  of  salt  and  leaven  —  but  without  intending 
to  add  anything  to  the  popular  knowledge  of  meteorology, 
botany,  or  agriculture.  The  facts  of  nature  and  of  human 
life  he  used  simply  as  means  to  illustrate  the  moral  and 
spiritual  truths  which  constitute  the  peculiar  province  of 
his  life-work. 

It  is  a  fair  question  whether  Jesus  meant  to  commit 
himself  to  any  doctrines  concerning  the  universe  or  life 
which  are  not  an  essential  part  of  his  positive  teaching  as 
the  founder  and  head  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Would 
it  have  been  consistent  with  his  Messianic  vocation  for 
him  to  have  assumed  the  role  of  an  expert  in  literary  or 
historical  criticism,  any  more  than  in  astronomy  or  meta- 
physics? If  Jesus  in  teaching  a  lesson  concerning  his  own 
work,  referred  to  Jonah  as  having  been  swallowed  by  a 
sea-monster  (Mt.  xii.  40),  did  he  thereby  mean  to  authen- 
ticate that  narrative  in  the  Old  Testament  as  literal  his- 

76 


GOOD   AND   EVIL   SPIRITS  77 

tory  ?^  When  he  spoke  of  the  "law  of  Moses,"  and  the  "book 
of  Moses,"  or  of  what  "  Moses  wrote,"  did  he  mean  to  say 
that  Moses  composed  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form? 
Did  he  pronounce  upon  the  authorship  of  certain  Psalms  by 
the  way  in  which  he  quoted  them  as  what  "  David  said  "  ? 
To  answer  these  questions  in  the  affirmative  is  to  suppose 
that  it  was  the  intention  of  Jesus  to  assert  the  correctness 
of  the  popular  ideas  of  his  time  respecting  the  character  of 
Old  Testament  stories  and  the  authorship  of  Old  Testa- 
ment books.  On  this  view  we  must  suppose  that  in  his 
incidental  references  to  such  subjects,  Jesus  is  not  merely 
speaking  the  popular  language  and  using  the  current  con- 
ceptions of  his  time  for  the  ends  of  his  teaching,  but  that 
he  is  committing  his  authority  to  the  scientific  accuracy  of 
the  common  expressions  and  ideas  which  he  uses.  On  this 
supposition  his  allusions  to  Old  Testament  books  and  nar- 
ratives are  sometimes  made  a  touchstone  for  determining 
critical  and  historical  questions  which  were  as  foreign  to 
the  thought  of  his  time  as  were  the  researches  and  problems 
of  anthropology  or  physical  science.  If  his  assertion, 
"  Moses  wrote,"  discredits  modern  criticism,  does  not  his 
affirmation  that  the  sun  rises  destroy  modern  astronomy  ?  ^ 

1  It  should  here  be  noticed  that  Matthew  alone  connects  the  Jonah-sign 
with  Jesus'  resurrection.  Luke  in  the  parallel  passage  (xi,  29,  30;  cf.  32) 
seems  to  regard  the  "sign  of  Jonah"  as  consisting  of  Jonah's  preaching. 
This  interpretation  of  the  "sign"  Matthew  has  also  preserved  from  the 
Logia  (xii.  41).  The  additional  explanation  of  Jonah's  sign  to  the  Nine- 
vites  as  consisting  in  his  deliverance  from  the  belly  of  the  monster  finds 
no  warrant  in  the  Book  of  Jonah  itself,  nor  in  the  context  of  our  passage. 
Jonah  was  a  sign  to  the  Ninevites  in  that  he  was  a  preacher  of  righteous- 
ness (Jon.  iii.  4).  With  this  idea  Luke  agrees,  and  also  Matthew  in  xii.  41, 
42.  The  additional  explanation  given  in  verse  40  is  probably  the  author's 
own,  suggested  by  the  point  of  likeness  between  the  experience  of  Jonah 
and  that  of  Jesus,  mentioned  in  verse  40  —  a  three-days  burial.  So  Holtz- 
mann  and  Wendt ;  per  contra,  Meyer  and  Weiss. 

2  "  If  indeed  the  question  had  ever  been  put  to  our  Lord,  was  such 
a  passage  written  by  such  a  man?  then  he  would  either  have  refused  to 
answer  such  a  question,  or  he  would  have  resolved  the  difficulty.  Had 
he  pronounced  his  decision,  I  would  have  believed  him.  Judging,  how- 
ever, from  his  ordinary  method  of  teaching,  I  should  have  expected  that, 
just  as  he  said  to  the  man  who  desired  him  to  interfere  in  a  question  of 
inheritance,  'Who  made  me  a  judge  or  a  divider  between  you?'  He 
would  have  said  in  reply  to  the  question  about  the  age  or  author  of  a  pas- 


78  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

We  must  conclude  that  Jesus  did  not  regard  it  as  falling 
within  his  province  to  criticise  the  popular  beliefs  of  his 
time  regarding  the  order  of  the  world,  or  as  any  part  of 
his  mission  to  extend  human  information  in  the  fields  of 
historical  fact,  literary  criticism,  or  philosophical  inquiry. 
When,  for  example,  he  spoke  of  the  heart,  the  spirit,  the 
soul,  or  life  of  man,  he  spoke  the  language  of  popular 
speech,  and  his  purpose  was  to  impress  religious  truth,  not 
to  impart  psychological  knowledge.  His  life-work  be- 
longed to  a  realm  which  is  immeasurably  higher  than  that 
of  human  science.  He  saw  the  inner  meaning  of  the  world 
and  of  life,  with  whose  details  science  is  occupied.  He 
penetrated  to  the  heart  of  Old  Testament  truth  and  was 
oblivious  of  such  questions  as  those  of  time,  place,  and 
date.  Nature  he  looked  upon  as  the  revelation  of  the  di- 
vine order  and  beneficence ;  he  spoke  often  of  her  powers 
and  processes,  which  were  for  his  mind  instinct  with 
God;  but  he  was  not  at  all  concerned  to  extend  men's 
observation  of  natural  phenomena,  much  less  to  correct 
the  popular  impressions  concerning  them.  For  him  it  was 
quite  enough  to  teach  men  to  see  God  in  nature,  as  it  was 
enough  to  show  them  the  imperishable  religious  truths 
which  formed  the  essential  substance  of  Old  Testament 
revelation. 

The  question  now  arises:  Can  we  safely  commit  our- 
selves to  the  guidance  of  principles  like  these  in  seeking 
to  distinguish  the  positive  and  explicit  teaching  of  Jesus 
from  those  incidental  references  which  he  often  makes  to 
various  ideas  and  conclusions  current  in  poj)ular  thought  ? 
Can  we,  for  example,  derive  a  positive  doctrine  of  the  loca- 
tion of  heaven  or  of  the  nature  of  Hades,  of  angels  and 
evil  spirits  and  Satan,  from  the  way  in  which  he  sj^eaks  of 
these  subjects  ?  Or  should  we  conclude  that  he  did  not 
intend  to  embrace  such  themes  within  the  range  of  his 
positive  instruction?  He  speaks  of  heaven,  as  men  have 
always  done,  in  terms  of  space.     It  is  a  name  for  the  seat 

sage  in  the  Old  Testament,  '  Who  commissioned  me  to  resolve  difficulties 
in  historical  criticism?'"  Bishop  Moorhouse,  The  Teaching  of  Christ 
(1892),  pp.  41,  42. 


GOOD   AND   EVIL   SPIRITS  79 

of  the  divine  majesty,  where  God's  will  is  perfectly  done. 
But  at  most  we  can  call  this  but  the  form  of  his  thought. 
Its  essence  does  not  consist  in  any  local  conception.  If 
God  is  in  heaven,  he  is  also  in  earth.  Heaven  is  often  a 
name  for  divinity,  or  God's  holy  order.  The  prodigal  son 
sins  against  heaven  (Lk.  xv.  18).  The  baptism  of  John 
was  from  heaven  (Mk.  xi.  30),  that  is,  providentially  ap- 
pointed and  divinely  sanctioned.  His  faithful  disciples 
are  to  receive  the  rewards  which  are  stored  up  for  them 
in  heaven  (Mt.  v.  12 ;  Lk.  xii.  33),  but  these  terms  are 
most  naturally  understood  as  referring  to  spiritual  benefits 
and  blessings,  not  to  external  gifts  which  are  hoarded  up 
for  men  like  earthly  treasures.  The  real  thought  of  Jesus 
concerning  heaven  clearly  transcends  the  popular  form  of 
which  he  most  naturally  makes  use  and  rises  into  the  world 
of  the  spirit.  Heaven  is  the  ideal  world ;  it  is  the  perfect 
life,  the  perfect  society,  as  God  conceives  and  designs  it ; 
it  is  the  true  goal  of  this  present  imperfect  order.  A 
severe  literalism  might  insist  that  Jesus  represents  heaven 
as  a  place  above  the  earth  where  God  sits  on  a  throne 
(Mt.  V.  34)  ;  a  more  discerning  search  into  the  aim  and 
import  of  Jesus'  teaching  discloses  his  deep  spiritual  pur- 
pose, —  to  kindle  in  men  a  living  sense  of  God,  of  whose 
perfections,  hol}^  laws,  and  order  "heaven  "  is  a  convenient 
and  popular  symbol.  In  this  case  there  is  no  great  diffi- 
culty in  distinguishing  what  is  incidental  to  the  popular 
speech  of  Jesus  from  what  is  central  and  essential  in  his 
thought  when  he  speaks  about  heaven. 

In  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  (Lk.  xvi. 
19  sg.)  he  makes  use  of  the  popular  idea  of  Hades  as  the 
general  abode  of  the  dead,  but  with  this  modification  of 
the  Old  Testament  idea  of  Sheol  as  a  dark  and  distinction- 
less  realm,  that  it  is  composed  of  two  parts  separated  by  a 
great  gulf,  across  which,  however,  men  converse.  It  is 
obvious  that  no  doctrine  concerning  Hades  is  meant  to  be 
taught  in  this  parabolic  use  of  current  ideas.  Paradise 
(Lk.  xxii.  43)  is  apparently  the  place  of  happiness  in 
Hades.  The  other  references  to  Hades  are  purely  figura- 
tive.    Capernaum  shall  be  cast  down  to  Hades  (Lk.  x.  16), 


80  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

—  a  symbol  of  abasement  in  contrast  to  heaven,  a  symbol 
of  exaltation.  Against  the  Church  the  "  gates  of  Hades," 
the  greatest  opposing  powers,  —  so  called  because  the  por- 
tals of  the  realm  of  death  so  securely  hold  all  who  dwell 
within  it,  —  shall  not  prevail  (Mt.  xvi.  18).  Does  Jesus, 
then,  sanction  the  Jewish  views  of  Sheol?  He  is  neither 
concerned  to  sanction  nor  to  deny  them.  He  uses  them 
as  convenient  forms  for  teaching  moral  truth.  His  revela- 
tion of  God  gives  him  no  occasion  either  to  confirm  or  to 
reject  them.  The  subject  is  not  within  the  field  of  his 
mission. 

We  will  next  observe  his  language  concerning  angels. 
The  Old  Testament  was  filled  with  references  to  super- 
human beings  and  their  agency.  The  later  Judaism  greatly 
increased  their  number  and  functions.  God  was  withdrawn 
from  the  world,  and  angels  were  conceived  of  as  the  medi- 
ating agents  by  which  he  accomplished  his  purposes  among 
men.  In  this  particular,  Jesus  did  not  altogether  follow 
the  thought  of  his  time.  He  represented  God  as  being  in 
living  contact  with  the  world,  and  as  directly  operative  in 
human  affairs.  He  accordingly  spoke  less  frequently  of 
angel-mediation. 

In  several  places,  however,  he  seems  to  refer  to  angels  in 
such  a  way  as  to  show  that  he  believed  in  their  real  exist- 
ence. He  will  come  "in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with 
the  holy  angels "  (Mk.  viii.  38 ;  Mt.  xvi.  27 ;  xxv.  31) ; 
"  angels  in  heaven  "  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  mar- 
riage (Mk.  xii.  25);  of  the  hour  of  his  advent  not  even 
"the  angels  in  heaven"  know  (Mk.  xiii.  32).  Beyschlag 
holds  that  "  the  holy  angels  of  the  Son  of  man,  with  whom 
he  will  come  again  in  his  glory,  are  the  rays  of  the  divine 
majesty  which  are  then  to  surround  him  with  splendor; 
they  are  the  divine  powers  with  which  he  is  to  awaken  the 
dead,  to  dissolve  the  present  order  of  the  world,  and  set 
up  a  new  and  higher  order."  ^  Even  if  the  references  to 
angels  in  connection  with  the  parousia  be  regarded  as 
poetical,  I  see  no  sufficient  ground  for  understanding  the 
other  references,  just  cited,  in  this  way;  and  it  is  notice- 

1  JV.  T.  Theol.  I.  87  (Bk.  I.  cli.  iv.  §  5). 


GOOD   AND   EVIL   SPIRITS  81 

able  that  Beyschlag  does  not  mention  them  in  his  discus- 
sion of  the  subject.  It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that 
most  of  our  Lord's  references  to  angels  may  be  understood, 
without  violence,  in  a  symbolic  way.  When  he  said  that 
he  might  ask  his  Father  and  he  would  send  him  "  more 
than  twelve  legions  of  angels  "  to  protect  him  from  the 
violence  of  his  enemies  (Mt.  xxvi.  53),  the  essence  of  his 
thought  certainly  is  that,  if  he  chose,  he  might  be  miracu- 
lously defended  against  his  accusers.  It  is  not  at  all  neces- 
sary to  the  clearness  and  force  of  his  thought  to  interpret 
this  language  literally. 

What,  now,  shall  be  said  of  Mt.  xviii.  10 :  "  See  that  ye 
despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones ;  for  I  say  unto  you, 
that  in  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of 
my  Father  which  is  heaven  "  ?  Considered  merely  in  its 
form,  this  passage  presents  the  idea  that  children  (or,  the 
humblest  of  believers  ^)  have  in  heaven  their  guardian 
angels  (^ef.  Acts  xii.  15),  who,  standing  in  closest  relation 
to  God,  represent  and  mediate  the  special  solicitude  of 
God  for  their  welfare.  This  idea  accords,  no  doubt,  with 
the  popular  thought  of  the  later  Judaism  that  God  exer- 
cised his  providential  care  through  angelic  instrumentality. 
The  question  here  is  whether  it  is  the  intention  of  Jesus  to 
confirm  that  idea,  or  whether  he  simply  uses  the  conception 
symbolically  to  enforce  the  truth  of  the  great  value  of  the 
"little  ones"  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  of  his  tender  care 
for  them.  We  may  not  be  justified  in  denying  that  Jesus 
accepted  the  popular  Jewish  idea  of  guardian  angels,  but 
we  cannot  maintain  that  it  is  in  any  way  essential  to  his 
thought.     I  do  not  believe  that  he  meant  to  assert  any- 

1  For  our  purpose  it  makes  no  essential  difference  whether  ixLKpol  be 
understood  to  refer  to  literal  children  (as  by  Weiss,  Wendt,  and  Holtz- 
mann)  or  persons  who  are  figuratively  so  called  (as  by  Morison,  Meyer, 
and  Beyschlag).  The  critical  difficulties  connected  with  the  passage, 
which  is  found  in  Matthew  alone,  are  considerable,  but  in  its  present  form 
it  appears  to  me  clearly  to  refer  to  children.  It  n)ay  well  be,  however, 
that  this  turn  was  given  to  it  by  our  first  evangelist  under  the  influence 
of  Mk.  ix.  36.  The  parallel,  Mk.  ix.  42,  and  the  earlier  verses  of  our 
chapter  (Mt.  xviii.  1-6  ;  cf.  Mt.  x.  42  ;  Lk.  xvii.  2)  do  not  seem  to  refer 
to  children,  but  to  humble,  childlike  believers.  Cf.  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu, 
p.  154. 

Q 


82  THE  SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

thing  upon  that  subject.  The  doctrine  which  he  was 
teaching  was  the  guardian  care  of  God.  That  teaching 
stands  in  undimmed  clearness  and  undiminished  force, 
whether  one  suppose  him  to  have  conceived  of  it  as  actu- 
ally effected  through  guardian  angels,  or  regard  that  idea 
simply  as  a  convenient  means  of  enforcing  his  truth  upon 
popular  apprehension. 

A  similar  view  may  be  taken  of  such  expressions  as 
these :  "  Him  shall  the  Son  of  man  also  confess  before 
the  angels  of  God "  (Lk.  xii.  8)  ;  "  There  is  joy  in  the 
presence  of  the  angels  of  God  over  one  sinner  that  re- 
penteth"  (Lk.  xv.  10).  Certainly  the  idea  in  the  first  of 
these  passages  is  the  same  as  we  find  in  Mt.  x.  32 :  "  Him 
will  I  also  confess  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 
Nothing  is  subtracted  from  the  positive  content  of  Jesus' 
teaching  if  "the  angels  of  God"  in  such  expressions  be 
understood  as  "  a  kind  of  poetic  paraphrase  for  God  him- 
self "  (Beyschlag).  With  even  greater  naturalness  may 
the  term  be  so  understood  in  the  parabolic  description  of 
Lazarus  as  being  carried  away  after  his  death  "by  the 
angels  into  Abraham's  bosom  "  (Lk.  xvi.  22).  That  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  presupposes  the  real  existence  of  an 
order  of  superhuman  and  holy  beings  is  highly  probable ; 
but  his  references  to  them  are  too  incidental  and  indefinite 
to  warrant  us  in  holding  that  he  intended  to  commit  him- 
self to  any  positive  doctrine  of  their  nature  and  functions. 
His  language  concerning  them  —  so  far  as  we  can  judge 
from  our  sources  —  was  quite  reserved ;  he  used  the  popu- 
lar ideas  about  angels  to  a  certain  extent,  but  always  as 
means  to  some  end  lying  beyond ;  hence  his  words  which 
touch  upon  the  subject  are  usually  symbolic  or  pictorial ; 
they  do  not  readily  yield  themselves  to  a  literal  interpre- 
tation, but  are  more  naturally  understood  in  a  semi-poetic 
sense. 

Just  as  the  popular  thought  of  Jesus'  time  conceived  of 
the  activity  of  God  in  the  world  as  mediated  through  good 
angels,  so  it  attributed  the  power  of  evil,  both  natural  and 
moral,  to  the  agency  of  wicked  spirits.  These  spirits  were 
thought  of   as  constituting  a  kingdom   of  evil  of  which 


GOOD   AND   EYIL   SPIRITS  83 

Satan  is  the  head.  These  malignant  powers  —  especially 
their  chief  —  are  perpetually  active  in  bringing  all  manner 
of  evils  upon  men.  In  the  Old  Testament  Satan  had  been 
described  as  the  accuser,  adversary,  or  destroyer  of  man- 
kind ;  he  is  employed  as  a  minister  of  God  for  the  testing 
and  chastisement  of  men.  In  the  Book  of  Job  Satan  pre- 
sents himself  among  the  sons  of  God,  the  mighty  messen- 
gers of  Jehovah,  and  to  him  is  given  permission  to  put 
Job  to  the  severest  tests  in  order  to  determine  whether  his 
service  to  God  is  genuine  and  disinterested  or  prudential 
and  selfish.  The  evils  which  he  proceeds  to  inflict  upon 
Job  as  tests  of  his  sincerity  are  what  we  call  natural  evils 
—  sickness,  loss  of  property  and  of  children.  The  question 
now  arises :  How  far  does  the  language  of  Jesus  recognize 
or  attest  these  and  kindred  ideas? 

Without  doubt  the  names  "  Satan,"  "  devil,"  and  "  evil 
one"  are  more  prominently  connected  with  moral  than 
with  natural  evil  in  our  sources.  In  the  narrative  of  the 
temptation  as  given  by  Matthew  (iv.  1-11)  and  Luke 
(iv.  1-13)  it  is  Satan  who  presents  to  Jesus  alluring  pros- 
pects of  success  if  he  will  abandon  the  divinely  appointed 
path  in  the  pursuit  of  his  Messianic  vocation  and  adopt 
methods  which  accord  with  the  popular  expectation.  Of 
the  origin  of  this  highly  figurative  and  pictorial  descrip- 
tion we  cannot  be  certain.  Not  improbably  its  substance 
was  communicated  to  the  disciples  by  Jesus  himself  as  a 
picture  of  the  two  paths  which  lay  before  him  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  ministry.  What  is  quite  certain,  in  any  case, 
is  that  Satan  here  appears  as  the  embodiment  of  the  popu- 
lar Jewish  Messianic  expectations.  If  the  words  rod  irovi-j- 
pov  in  Matthew's  version  of  the  Lord's  prayer  are  to  be 
taken  as  personal  ("  the  evil  one  "),  then  we  have  in  the 
Synoptics  a  clear  reference  to  Satan  as  the  source  of 
temptation  to  evil ;  but  this  conclusion  is  doubly  doubtful 
because,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  quite  possible  that  rov 
TTovTjpov  should   be  taken  as   impersonal  ("evil"),^  and, 

1  Undoubtedly  the  majority  of  modern  interpreters  render  rov  irovrjpov, 
"the  evil  one";  so  Morison,  Broadus,  Meyer,  Iloltzmann,  R.V. ;  but 
many  still  prefer  the  abstract  meaning,  "  evil,"  found  in  the  A. V.  ;  e.g., 


84  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF    JESUS 

further,  because  the  shorter  form  of  the  prayer,  as  given 
by  Luke  (xi.  1-4),  which  does  not  contain  these  words,  is 
probably  the  more  original.^ 

Both  Matthew  and  Luke  have  preserved  from  the  Mark- 
source  the  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  Sower,  in 
which  Jesus  says :  "  When  they  have  heard,  straightway 
cometh  Satan,  and  taketh  away  the  word  which  hath  been 
sown  in  them"  (Mk.  iv.  15;  Mt.  xiii.  18;  Lk.  viii.  12). 
The  references  to  Satan  as  "  the  enemy  "  who  sows  tares 
among  the  wheat  (Mt.  xiii.  28,  39)  are  to  be  employed 
less  confidently  because  there  is  some  reason  to  think  that 
the  parable  of  the  Tares  (peculiar  to  Matthew)  is  an  am- 
plification of  the  parable  of  the  Growing  Seed  in  Mk.  iv. 
26-29,  and  that  its  exposition  (xiii.  36-43)  was  an  inter- 
pretation emanating  from  the  evangelist  or  in  current  use 
among  the  early  disciples.  It  bears  the  marks  of  an  alle- 
gorizing interpretation  of  the  details  of  the  parable  and 
appears  to  conduct  to  a  different  goal,  the  judgment  and 
its  issues,  from  that  which  the  parable  itself  contem- 
plates, which  is  to  show  how  his  disciples  must  feel  and 
act  in  view  of  the  fact  that  there  will  be  counterfeit 
Christians  among  them.^  But  whatever  view  be  taken  on 
these  latter  points,  it  is  a  fair  question  whether  in  these 
figurative  discourses  the  references  to  Satan  may  not  be  as 
figurative  as  the  rest  of  the  language.  When  it  is  said 
that  Satan  snatches  away  the  seed  that  is  sown  in  the 
heart,  it  is  obvious  that  "seed"  and  "heart"  are  figurative 
designations  for  truth  and  the  mind  which  apprehends  it. 
It  is  not  easy  to  show  that  "  Satan  "  in  such  expressions 
means  more  than  the  spirit  of  worldliness  which  neutral- 
izes the  power  of  divine  truth. 

Quite  in  accord  with  the  representations  in  Job  which 
describe  Satan  as   the  tempter  who  puts  the  devotion  of 

Laiige,  Alford,  and  Weiss.  Professor  L.  S.  Potwin,  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,  April,  1891,  has  strongly  defended  this  view  on  various  grounds, 
among  them  this,  that  the  Septuagint  often  designates  evil  by  irovt^pov, 
with  and  without  the  article,  but  does  not  designate  Satan  by  6  iroprjpos. 

1  See  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  pp.  97,  98. 

2  Cf.  Weiss,  Matthdusev.,  p.  352;  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  pp.  178  179; 
Holtzmann,  Hand  com.  ad  loc. 


GOOD   AND   EVIL   SPIRITS  85 

men  to  the  test,  is  the  language  of  Jesus  to  Peter :  "  Satan 
asked  to  have  you,  that  he  might  sift  you  as  wheat "  (Lk. 
xxii.  31).  Here  the  testing  process  to  which  Peter  is 
exposed  appears  to  be  the  stress  under  which  lie  is  to  be 
placed  in  deciding  between  the  higher  and  the  lower  view 
of  Jesus'  work  and  Kingdom.  Peter  is  to  undergo  a  test 
analogous  to  that  to  which  Jesus  himself  was  subjected  in 
his  temptation.  Again,  Satan  is  called  ''  the  prince  of 
the  demons,"  who,  as  head  of  a  kingdom  of  evil  spirits, 
may  be  likened  to  a  "strong  man"  guarding  his  house. 
Men  who  have  been  seized  by  his  vassals  are  his  "  spoil " 
and  cannot  be  rescued  except  by  one  who  is  more  powerful 
than  the  chief  himself  (Mk.  iii.  22-2T ;  Mt.  xii.  25-29; 
Lk.  xi.  17-22).  In  such  passages  the  view  taken  of  "  Satan" 
must  be  involved  in  that  which  is  adopted  respecting 
demons  and  demoniacal  possession. 

We  find  that  on  an  earlier  occasion  when  Peter  repudi- 
ated the  idea  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  Jesus  rebuked  him  in 
these  words  :  "Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan  :  for  thou  mindest 
not  the  things  of  God,  but  the  things  of  men  "  (Mk.  viii. 
33;  Mt.  xvi.  23).  Here  "Satan"  is  evidently  used  as 
a  symbolic  name  for  opposer  or  tempter.  Peter's  hos- 
tility to  the  divinely  appointed  course  which  Jesus  must 
pursue  sprang  from  that  ambitious  and  worldly  spirit 
which  was  the  product  of  popular  Jewish  Messianic  hopes. 
He  was  acting  the  part  of  an  adversary  to  God  in  protest- 
ing against  the  cross,  as  the  goal  of  his  Master's  life.  In 
this  connection  we  should  observe  the  striking  words  of 
Jesus  to  the  Seventy  upon  their  return  from  their  mission: 
"  1  beheld  Satan  fallen  as  lightning  from  heaven  "  (Lk.  x. 
17).  This  is  certainly  a  figurative  exclamation  strongly 
reminding  one  of  the  words  in  Isaiah's  satirical  ode  against 
the  Babylonian  tyrant :  "  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven, 
O  day  star,  son  of  the  morning!"  (Is.  xiv.  12).  But 
whether  the  whole  conception,  including  that  of  Satan,  is 
figurative,  or  only  that  of  the  swift  fall  from  heaven,  while 
Satan  is  still  thought  of  as  an  actual  person,  depends 
largely  upon  the  view  taken  of  the  "  possession  "  whose 
cure  was  the  occasion  of  the  exclamation.      The  one  per- 


86  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

fectly  clear  reference  to  Satan  as  the  cause  of  physical 
infirmity  is  contained  in  the  description  of  the  deformed 
woman  who  "could  in  no  wise  lift  herself  up,"  as  one 
"  whom  Satan  had  bound  eighteen  years  "  (Lk.  xiii.  11, 
16).^  The  same  idea,  however,  is  implied  in  the  represen- 
tation of  the  "  demonized "  (haiixovil^oiievoL)  as  Satan's 
"  spoil,"  so  far  as  their  "  possession "  is  identified  with 
physical  maladies ;  and  to  that  subject  we  must  now 
turn. 2 

Characteristic  examples  of  this  "possession"  are  as 
follows :  The  man  "  with  an  unclean  spirit "  in  the  syna- 
gogue at  Capernaum  which,  when  Jesus  exorcises  it, 
tears  the  man  and  cries  with  a  loud  voice  (Mk.  i.  21  sq.  ; 
Lk.  iv.  31  sg.) ;  the  Gerasene  demoniac  who  dwelt  among 
the  tombs,  gashed  his  body  with  stones,  and  could  not  be 
tamed,  being  inhabited  by  a  "  legion  "  of  demons  (Mk.  v. 

1  sq. ;  Mt.  viii.  28  sq. ;  Lk.  viii.  26  sq.^  ;  a  dumb  man  who 
spake  as  soon  as  the  demon  which  had  caused  his  dumb- 
ness was  cast  out  (Mt.  ix.  32,  33 ;  cf.  Lk.  xi.  14  and  Mt. 
xii.  22) ;  the  little  daughter  of  a  SyrophcBuician  woman 
who  was  "  grievously  vexed  with  a  demon "  and  who, 
when  healed,  went  home  and  lay  down  upon  the  bed,  re- 
stored to  health  (Mk.  vii.  25  sq. ;  Mt.  xv.  22  sq.^  ;  the 
epileptic  boy  (Mt.  xvii.  15)  who  had  a  "  dumb  spirit "  and 
who  often  fell  into  fire  and  water  and  rolled  on  the  ground 
and  frothed  at  the  mouth  when  the  demon  seized  him 
(Mk.  ix.  17  sq.  ;  Mt.  xvii.  14  sq. ;  Lk.  ix.  37  s^.).  These 
are  all  the  examples  of  "possession"  which  are  described 
with  any  detail  in  our  sources.^ 

1  The  idea  that  it  is  the  special  province  of  Satan  to  inflict  sickness 
and  other  natural  evils  upon  men  appears  in  Paul's  epistles  :  1  Cor.  v.  5  ; 

2  Cor.  xii.  7  ;  1  Thess.  ii.  18  ;  1  Tim.  i.  20. 

~  I  would  commend  to  the  reader  the  discussion  of  this  subject  by  Row 
in  The  Supernatural  in  the  Neiv  Testament  (1875),  and  the  remarks  by 
Bruce  in  The  Miraculoiis  Element  in  the  Gosjjels  (1895). 

3  The  healings  of  the  "blind  and  dumb"  man  (Mt.  xii.  22)  may  be  a 
repetition  (so  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesn,  p.  100)  of  the  cure  already  related  by 
Matthew  (ix.  32,  33)  in  close  agreement  with  Lk.  xi.  14.  The  woman 
"whom  Satan  had  bound"  (Lk.  xiii.  16)  is  not  explicitly  said  to  have 
been  "possessed."  If  these  two  cases  are  counted,  they  make  seven  in 
all. 


GOOD   AND   EVIL    SPIRITS  87 

On  the  general  subject  we  observe :  (1)  All  the  symp- 
toms which  are  described  are  such  as  characterize  one  or 
another  physical  or  mental  malady.  If  the  phenomena 
were  not  attributed  to  demoniacal  possession,  we  should 
experience  no  difficulty  in  explaining  all  the  examples  as 
cases  of  disease,  such  as  paralysis,  deafness,  loss  of  speech, 
epilepsy,  and  insanity.  The  argument  for  the  reality  of 
possession  by  demons  must  rest  entirely  upon  the  fact  that 
this  term  is  applied  in  the  Gospels  to  these  maladies,  and 
not  at  all  upon  the  nature  or  peculiarities  of  the  symptoms 
which  are  described.  We  note,  moreover,  that  the  casting 
out  of  demons  is  commonl}^  associated  in  our  sources  with 
the  healing  of  the  sick  (Mt.  x.  8 ;  Mk.  i.  34 ;  iii.  15 ;  Lk. 
xiii.  20),  although  it  is  distinguished  from  such  healing. 

(2)  We  find  that  others  besides  Jesus  "  cast  out  demons." 
Whatever  these  maladies  were,  it  is  certain  that  both  Jesus 
and  his  disciples  recognized  the  ability  of  exorcists  to  cure 
them  in  some  instances.  On  one  occasion  the  disciples 
saw  one  casting  out  demons  in  Jesus'  name  and  rebuked 
him  because  he  did  not  join  their  company ;  but  Jesus 
said :  "  Forbid  him  not,  for  there  is  no  man  who  can  do  a 
mighty  work  in  my  name  and  be  able  quickly  to  speak 
evil  of  me"  (Mk.  ix.  38,  39;  Lk.  ix.  49,  50).  Again, 
when  the  Pharisees  charged  him  with  casting  out  demons 
by  the  aid  of  their  prince,  he  replied :  "  If  I  by  Beelzebub 
cast  out  demons,  by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out  ? 
therefore  shall  they  be  your  judges"  (Lk.  xi.  19;  xii.  27). 
One  of  the  claims  which  those  who  call  Jesus  Lord  and 
do  not  obey  his  precepts,  will  make  in  the  judgment  is 
(according  to  Matthew's  version)  that  they  have  by  his 
name  cast  out  demons  (Mt.  vii.  22).  It  is  thus  evident 
that,  whatever  these  maladies  were,  there  were  men  who, 
in  some  cases,  succeeded  in  curing  them. 

(3)  "  Possession  "  is  not  represented  in  our  sources  as  a 
result  or  an  evidence  of  extraordinary  wickedness.  Weiss 
says :  "  The  radical  matter  of  fact  (respecting  the  demo- 
niacs) was  simply  this,  that  the  sinful  condition  had 
reached  a  height  where  the  man  no  longer  had  the  mas- 
tery of  sin,  but  sin  of  him ;  and  when  sunk  in  this  utter 


88  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

impotence,  and  possessing  no  will  of  his  own,  he  yielded 
to  the  enslaving  power  of  sin,  this  dominion  is  referred  to 
a  superhuman  spiritual  power  Avhich  held  sway  over  liim 
and  deprived  him  of  all  volition.  .  .  .  What  was  most 
striking  about  tlie  appearance  of  these  so-called  demoniacs 
was  the  conjunction  with  this  yielding  to  Satan  and  to  the 
power  of  sin,  of  a  state  of  disease,  whether  of  psychical  or 
bodily  character,  which  is  regarded  as  the  result  of  their 
moral  condition."  ^  This  view,  then,  is  that  "  possession  " 
was  really  special  wickedness,  popularly  conceived  as  the 
result  of  the  indwelling  of  demons  in  men,  —  wickedness 
which  brought  on  various  bodily  and  mental  diseases  in 
consequence  of  the  ''profound  internal  connection"  be- 
tween body  and  mind.  I  do  not  think  that  the  first  propo- 
sition of  this  theory  finds  any  support  in  the  Synoptists. 
The  demoniacs  are  represented  as  the  victims  of  misfor- 
tune rather  than  as  monsters  of  wickedness.  There  is  not 
a  single  case  in  which  their  "  possession "  is  associated 
with  special  sinfulness.  Frantic  ravings,  self-injury,  ir- 
rational exclamations  and  loss  of  faculties  are  ascribed  to 
these  demoniacs,  but  never  monstrous  wickedness.  This 
theory  reduces  ad  ahsurdum  in  application  to  the  little 
Greek  girl,  the  nature  of  whose  malady  we  can  only  con- 
jecture from  the  fact  that  after  her  cure  she  lay  peacefully 
upon  the  bed.  Whatever  "  demoniacal  possession  "  Avas,  it 
is  described  in  our  sources  as  belonging  to  the  sphere  of 
natural,  rather  than  to  that  of  moral,  evil. 

(4)  We  observe,  in  one  case  at  least,  a  quasi-personi- 
fication  of  disease.  Peter's  mother-in-law  was  "  holden  " 
(^a-vvexofJievTf)  with  a  great  fever  which  Jesus  "rebuked" 
{eTreTL/Jirjaev),  and  "it  left  her"  (Lk.  iv.  38,  39).  In  one 
instance  the  "spirit"  which  "possessed"  the  person  is 
described  by  the  characteristic  of  the  malady;  it  was  a 
"dumb  spirit"  which  had  entered  into  the  frantic  boy, 
that  is,  a  spirit  causing  dumbness  (Mk.  ix.  17).  The 
woman  whom  Satan  had  bound  eighteen  years  "had  a 
spirit  of  infirmity,"  that  is,  a  spirit  which  produced 
her  infirmity  (Lk.  xiii.  11).     These  three  examples  may 

1  The  Life  of  Christ,  IL  81  (Bk.  III.  ch.  vi.). 


GOOD   AND   EVIL   SPIRITS  89 

be  regarded  as  representing  three  stages  of  thought 
through  which  the  mind  might  easily  pass  in  an  age 
when  all  sorts  of  evils  were  constantly  referred  to  the 
agency  of  invisible  powers.  First,  the  disease  is  personi- 
fied ;  then  the  kind  of  disease  is  ascribed  to  a  spirit  like 
itself  —  the  disease  and  the  spirit  being  half  identified  and 
half  distinguished ;  and,  finally,  the  evil  spirit  simply  in- 
flicts at  will  one  or  another  malady  upon  the  person.  I 
do  not  mean  to  intimate  that  there  was  any  such  develop- 
ment of  ideas  in  chronological  order,  but  only  that  these 
three  examples  may  be  regarded  as  representing  three 
forms  of  thought  res^Decting  disease  which  three  individ- 
uals might  illustrate,  showing  to  what  extent  the  mind  of 
each  was  under  the  power  of  the  idea  of  demoniacal  pos- 
session as  the  explanation  of  severe  disease.  One  might 
conceive  the  disease  as  a  spirit ;  another  as  a  "  dumb  "  or 
"  deaf "  spirit,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  malady ; 
another  as  simply  the  malevolent  cause  of  any  given 
physical  or  mental  disorder. 

(5)  Jesus  makes  a  very  remarkable  allegorical  use  of 
the  idea  of  demon-possession  to  illustrate  the  tendency  of 
the  Jews  to  relapse,  after  any  temporary  amendment,  into 
increased  wickedness  (Lk.  xi.  24-26  ;  Mt.  xii.  43-45).  He 
describes  an  unclean  spirit  who  has  been  cast  out  of  the 
man  whom  he  has  inhabited,  as  wandering  about  in  dry 
and  desert  regions ;  Avhen  he  finds  no  habitation  there,  he 
decides  to  return  into  the  man  in  whom  he  had  formerly 
dwelt.  He  finds  the  man  unoccupied  by  any  other  "spirit," 
like  an  empty  house  waiting  for  a  tenant.  Thereupon  he 
associates  with  himself  seven  other  spirits  more  evil  than 
himself,  and  they  all  enter  this  man,  and  thereafter  he  is 
inhabited  by  eight  demons  instead  of  one.  We  may  not 
be  justified  in  basing  Q,ny  argument  on  this  passage  either 
for  or  against  the  reality  of  possession  by  demons,  but  it 
is  difficult  to  resist  the  impression  that  while  this  apologue 
is  appropriate  and  impressive  if  regarded  as  an  illustrative 
use  of  current  popular  ideas,  it  seems  very  grotesque  if 
understood  as  a  description  of  real  beings  and  their  be- 
havior.    All  must,  indeed,  admit  that  some  use  is  here 


90  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF    JESUS 

made  of  popular  ideas  whicli  it  is  no  part  of  Jesus'  purpose 
to  sanction.  Wild,  uninhabited  regions  were  commonly 
regarded  as  the  special  abodes  of  demons.  But  it  would 
be  preposterous  to  suppose  that  Jesus  means  to  affirm 
this  to  be  an  actual  fact.  Does  he  then  mean  to  say  that 
a  man  may  be  tenanted  by  a  large  but  definite  number 
of  evil  spirits,  say,  for  example,  eight?  If  not,  does  he 
mean  to  sanction  the  popular  notion  of  '' possession "  at 
all  ?  Where  shall  the  line  be  drawn  between  the  simply 
natural  and  convenient  use  of  popular  ideas  respecting 
subjects  which  he  was  in  no  way  concerned  to  discuss,  and 
his  didactic  attestation  of  such  ideas  ? 

I  have  pointed  out  the  phenomena  of  spiritism  which 
our  sources  describe,  not  with  the  view  of  advocating  any 
theory,  but  in  order  to  show  what  are  the  considerations 
with  which  we  have  to  deal.  Into  the  question  about  the 
scope  of  our  Lord's  knowledge  respecting  such  subjects,  I 
am  not  required  to  enter.  Our  sole  inquiry  is :  what,  if 
anything,  did  he  teach  respecting  such  subjects  as  good  and 
evil  spirits  ?  That  he  frequently  spoke  of  them  after  the 
manner  of  his  time  we  have  already  seen.  Is  his  author- 
ity as  a  teacher  committed  to  the  correctness  of  those  ideas  ? 
I  do  not  believe  that  it  is.  That  Jesus  believed,  and  in 
his  teaching  implied,  that  there  are  good  beings  called 
angels  and  evil  beings  called  demons  and  Satan,  I  cannot 
doubt,  but  his  language  concerning  them  is  popular  and  not 
didactic,  and  his  authority  is  not  committed  to  the  prevail- 
ing ideas  which  obtained  in  regard  to  them,  although  he 
spoke  with  respect  to  this,  as  with  respect  to  all  subjects 
outside  the  scope  of  his  special  teaching,  in  the  terms  current 
in  his  age.^  His  language  is  pictorial,  and  his  purpose  in 
speaking  on  such  topics  always  terminates  on  ethical  and 
spiritual  instruction,  and  not  on  giving  information  respect- 

1  "  If  he  had  denied  the  current  theory  (of  demoniacal  possession),  he 
would  have  been  giving  evidence  of  scientific  knowledge  or  of  scientific 
intuition  beyond  the  culture  of  his  time,  and  this,  as  in  countless  other 
cases,  was  not  in  accordance  with  his  method,  which,  whether  we  suppose 
it  divine  or  human,  has  nowhere  proved  his  divine  mission  by  foreknowl- 
edge of  natural  science."  George  J.  Romanes,  Thoughts  on  Beligion 
(1895),  p.  193. 


GOOD   AND   EVIL   SPIRITS  91 

ing  the  acts  of  superhuman  spirits.  We  have  seen  how 
Satan  is  portrayed  in  language  almost  wholly  figurative. 
He  appears  in  the  pictorial  narrative  of  the  temptation,  he 
snatches  away  the  good  seed  and  sows  tares,  sifts  Peter  as 
wheat,  and  bows  down  a  woman  with  infirmity.  More- 
over, Peter  is  called  ''  Satan "  when  he  opposes  divine 
truth.  Much  the  same  holds  true  of  the  demons.  Collec- 
tively considered,  they  are  almost  synonyms  with  "  Satan  " 
where  Jesus  says  that  if  he  should  cast  out  demons  by  the 
prince  of  the  demons,  Satan  would  be  divided  against  him- 
self (Mk.  ii.  26;  Mt.  xii.  26;  Lk.  xi.  18).  The  dethron- 
ing of  demons  in  men  is  the  same  as  Satan  falling  like 
lightning  from  heaven  (Lk.  xiii.  32).  Clear  cases  of 
maladies  such  as  speechlessness  and  mania  are  attributed 
to  their  power. 

In  discussions  of  this  subject  some  such  dilemma  as  this 
is  commonly  presented :  Jesus  spoke  of  the  casting  out  of 
demons  by  himself  and  by  others ;  now  he  either  spoke  and 
acted  according  to  fact,  or  he  knowingly  lent  the  weight 
of  his  authority  to  a  superstition  which  he  knew  had  no 
foundation  in  fact.  I  do  not  think  we  are  shut  up  to  any 
such  dilemma.  Whether  demon-possession  be  in  reality  a 
fact  or  a  superstition,  the  authority  of  Jesus  cannot  be 
fairly  cited  for  either  the  one  or  the  other  view  of  it.  The 
case  is  the  same  as  with  regard  to  the  110th  Psalm.  Jesus 
cites  it  as  containing  what  "David  said"  (Mk.  xii.  35-37). 
Many  would  here  involve  us  in  the  dilemma :  Either  David 
must  have  written  the  110th  Psalm,  or  Jesus'  authority  is 
undermined.  No  dilemma  of  this  sort  is  to  be  admitted. 
Jesus  simply  spoke  as  other  people  did  about  Psalms  and 
all  other  books.  He  taught  nothing  concerning  their 
authorship.  Nor  did  he  concerning  the  nature,  functions, 
or  actions  of  angels  or  demons. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

HUMAN  NATURE  AND  SINFULNESS 

The  references  which  Jesus  made  to  the  true  nature  of 
man,  and  to  the  estimate  which  God  puts  upon  his  well- 
being,  are  so  numerous  and  explicit  that  they  furnish  suf- 
ficient materials  for  the  construction  of  a  doctrine.  He 
did  not,  indeed,  directly  discuss  man's  origin,  nor  did  he 
speak  abstractly  about  human  nature  or  man's  relation  to 
God.  Nevertheless,  in  apothegm  and  in  parable,  and,  still 
more,  in  action,  he  showed  what  man  in  his  true  divine 
destination  is,  and  indicated  the  ways  in  which  he  falls 
short  of  its  realization.  His  teaching  includes  such  points 
as  the  following : 

(1)  The  life  of  every  man,  as  such,  is  of  priceless  value. 
If  Jesus  was  speaking  to  his  disciples  when  he  pictured 
God's  care  for  each  separate  life  by  saying :  "  The  very 
hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered.  Fear  not  therefore, 
ye  are  of  more  valuer  than  many  sparrows  "  (Mt.  x.  30,  31 ; 
Lk.  vi.  7),  it  is  still  certain  that  he  did  not  conceive  of  this 
estimate  of  the  value  of  man  as  applicable  only  to  his 
followers.  Matthew  has  given  in  epigrammatic  form  the 
substance  of  Jesus'  reason  for  doing  good  to  men  on  the 
sabbath  day:  "  How  much,  then,  is  a  man  of  more  value 
than  a  sheep !  Wherefore  it  is  lawful  to  do  good  on  the 
sabbath  day"  (Mt.  xii.  12).  The  beneficence  of  Jesus 
presupposes  the  value  of  man,  as  man,  and  the  divine  care 
for  his  good.  Regard  to  special  institutions  like  the  sab- 
bath must  give  way  when  it  conflicts  with  human  interests. 
Man  is  the  end  to  which  all  such  institutions  are  means. 
"  On  man's  account  (8m  rov  avOpwirov^  was  the  sabbath 
made,  and  not  man  on  the  sabbath's  account"  (Mk.  ii.  27). 

92 


HUMAN  NATURE  AND    SINFULNESS  93 

(2)  It  follows  that  the  forfeiture  by  any  man  of  his  true 
life  is  regarded  as  an  unspeakable  calamity.  "  What  doth 
it  profit  a  man  to  gain  the  whole  world,  and  forfeit  his  life?  " 
(Mk.  viii.  37;  Mt.  xvi.  26;  Lk.  ix.  25).  The  life  of  one 
man  in  its  true  meaning  and  destination  outweighs  the 
value  of  the  world.  To  lose  it  is  to  forfeit  that  which 
lends  meaning  and  worth  to  human  existence  —  knowl- 
edge, holiness,  love,  and  truth ;  it  is  to  lose  one's  self 
(Luke  has:  iavrbv  Be  airoXeaa^  rj  ^rjfXLwde (,<;).  He  who 
thus  loses  himself  loses  what  no  price  is  adequate  to  buy 
back  (Mk.  viii.  37) ;  the  loss  is  irreparable.  But  the  loss 
of  anything  can  be  irreparable  only  when  its  value  is 
beyond  estimate.  Hence  Jesus  taught  that  one  might 
better  undergo  the  severest  self-denial  and  suffering  than 
to  forfeit  his  true  spiritual  life.  Such  is  the  import  of  the 
sayings :  If  thy  hand  or  foot  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cut 
them  off ;  it  is  better  to  enter  into  life  maimed  than  retain- 
ing both  hands  and  both  feet,  to  go  into  Gehenna  (Mk. 
ix.  43  sq. ;  Mt.  xviii.  8  sq.).  The  life  is  more  important 
than  comfort  or  any  temporal  good ;  it  is  worth  more  than 
the  food  which  sustains  it  and  which  is  but  a  means  to  its 
ends  (Mt.  vi.  25) ;  it  is  more  valuable  than  all  earthly 
things  in  God's  sight,  since  it  does  not  consist  in  outward 
possessions  (Lk.  xii.  15),  but  in  inward  peace  and  well- 
being  (Lk.  xii.  16-21;  Mt.  v.  3-12). 

In  harmony  with  this  view  of  the  worth  of  life,  Jesus 
taught  that  the  humblest  or  most  insignificant  person,  on 
whom  men  set  no  value,  is  precious  before  God.  ''  These 
little  ones"  —  be  they  children  or  humble  believers;  cf. 
page  81  —  are  not  to  be  despised  (Mt.  xviii.  10).  The 
least  important  person  who  goes  astray  from  goodness 
excites  the  pity  and  solicitude  of  God,  and  he  seeks  him 
and  brings  him  back  as  the  shepherd,  leaving  his  ninety- 
nine  sheep,  goes  into  the  mountains  in  eager  search  after 
the  one  that  has  wandered  away.  "  Even  so,"  said  Jesus, 
"it  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  that 
one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish"  (Mt.  xviii.  12-14; 
Lk.  XV.  4-7).  \n  the  parable  of  the  Ricli  Man  and  Lazarus 
he  pictured  the  diseased  and  neglected  beggar  and  the 


94  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

unmerciful  or  indifferent  rich  man  in  order  to  show  that 
God  does  not  judge  men  by  their  outward  conditions  in 
this  world.  Not  what  one  has  but  what  one  is  gives  the 
true  measure  of  a  man.  A  beggar  may  stand  far  above 
a  prince  in  his  favor.  The  beggar  whom  the  rich  man 
would  not  notice  was  not  beneath  the  notice  of  the  All- 
merciful. 

(3)  Even  the  worst  sinners  still  have  worth  in  God's 
sight.  Over  and  over  again  Jesus  was  charged  with  being 
a  "friend  of  publicans  and  sinners"  (Mt.  xi.  19).  The 
charge  was  true.  He  even  sought  out  the  despised  and 
degraded  in  order  that  he  might  bless  and  save  them  (Mk. 
ii.  15  ;  Lk.  v.  30).  This  action  was  certainly  not  due  to 
the  pleasure  which  he  found  in  their  society,  nor  to  any 
sudden  accession  of  special  compassion.  He  deliberately 
planned  to  seek  after  those  who  were  farthest  from  the 
common  standards  of  virtue,  and  believed  that  he  would 
find  among  them  a  more  ready  acceptance  of  his  truth 
than  among  the  self-righteous  religionists  who  thought 
that  they  needed  no  repentance  or  amendment  of  life 
(Mt.  xxi.  31).  Our  sources  give  us  no  reason  to  ascribe 
any  class-feeling  or  class-prejudice  to  Jesus.  The  publi- 
can as  such  was  not  worth  more  in  his  sight  than  the 
Pharisee.  But  he  was  more  accessible  ;  and  Jesus  sought, 
not  the  publican^  but  the  man^  and  all  the  more  because  he 
was  sinful  and  needy.  The  pious  Jew  of  the  period  was 
commonly  completely  encased  in  a  covering  of  tradition 
and  formalism  which  was  utterly  impervious  to  spiritual 
truth.  Those,  however,  whom  he  called  ''sinners,"  the 
social  outcasts  and  even  the  positively  immoral,  were,  in 
the  view  of  Jesus,  more  likely  to  have  a  sense  of  their 
unworthiness  and  spiritual  need  than  were  those  who 
"trusted  in  themselves  that  they  were  righteous  and 
despised  others"  (Lk.  xviii.  9).  Jesus  did  not  avoid  the 
rich  because  they  were  rich  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  numbered 
many  of  the  prosperous  among  his  friends.  He  did  not 
pass  by  the  Pharisees  because  their  formal  and  ostentatious 
piety  was  repugnant  to  his  own  feeling ;  on  the  contrary, 
he  was  glad  to  draw  them  to  himself  whenever  he  found 


HUMAN   NATUKE   AND   SINFULNESS  95 

in  them  the  least  susceptibility  to  spiritual  truth.  But, 
for  the  most  part,  he  found  among  these  classes  but  little 
response  to  his  appeal.  In  genqi-al,  it  was  only  "  the  com- 
mon people  "  who  "heard  him  gladly  "  (Mk.  xii.  37).  He 
found  none  so  hopeless  as  those  who  were  perfectly  satis- 
fied with  themselves  and  perfectly  content  to  remain  as 
they  were. 

Jesus  openly  professed  it  to  be  his  special  concern  to 
care  for  those  for  whom  no  one  else  cared ;  to  seek  to  save 
those  who  seemed  indifferent  to  their  own  salvation.  He 
taught  that  God  did  not  estimate  them  as  their  more 
favored  neighbors  did;  that  although  "lost"  they  were 
not  irrecoverable.  Hence  he  pictured  a  Pharisee  and  a 
publican  praying  side  by  side  in  the  temple  (Lk.  xviii.  9 
sq.').  The  former  professed  his  own  goodness ;  the  latter 
confessed  his  sin.  Jesus  plainly  hinted  that  there  was 
more  hope  of  the  latter  than  of  tlie  former,  because  there 
was  in  him  more  self-knowledge  and  more  sense  of  what 
God  requires.  Again,  in  the  parables  of  Luke  xv.  he  has 
defended  his  policy  of  seeking  the  outcast  and  lost.  The 
Pharisees  and  scribes  sneered  at  him  for  keeping  evil  com- 
pany and  hinted  that  he  was  like  the  "  publicans  and  sin- 
ners" with  whom  he  associated.  Jesus  replied  in  the 
parables  of  the  Lost  Sheep  and  the  Lost  Piece  of  Money 
(Lk.  XV.  3-10).  I  must  concern  myself,  he  says,  for 
that  which  is  lost,  just  because  it  is  lost.  The  shepherd 
may  safely  disregard  for  the  time  the  ninety-nine  sheep 
which  are  safe  in  the  fold,  in  his  eager  search  for  the  one 
which  has  strayed  away.  The  prudent  housewife  who  has 
lost  one  piece  of  money  may  safely  give  no  concern  to  the 
pieces  which  are  in  safe  keeping,  while  she  searches  the 
house  for  the  missing  coin.  So  if  you  Pharisees  are  (as 
you  assume)  safe  in  the  fold  of  the  divine  favor,  I  may 
justly  disregard  you  and  make  those  the  special  object  of 
my  solicitude  who  are  clearly  outside  that  fold.  "  They 
that  are  whole  have  no  need  of  a  physician ;  but  they  that 
are  sick.  I  am  not  come  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners, 
to  repentance"  (Lk.  v.  31,  32).  The  parables  present  an 
argumentum  ad  liommem  :  assuming  that  you  are  what  you 


96  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

think  you  are,  and  that  publicans  and  sinners  are  also  what 
you  think  them  to  be,  my  procedure  stands  justified. 

The  parable  of  the  Log}  Son  (Lk.  xv.  11-32)  elaborates 
the  same  thought  still  more  impressively.  The  elder  son  is 
the  conscientious,  scrupulous  Jew  who  fulfils  punctually 
his  round  of  religious  duty,  taking  great  satisfaction  in 
its  completeness  and  feeling  a  self-complaisant  disdain  for 
those  who  neglect  or  despise  their  religious  obligations. 
The  younger  son  is  the  typical  "  sinner  "  who  has  thrown 
off  all  restraint  and  gives  himself  over  to  a  life  of  sensuous 
indulgence.  The  father's  solicitude  for  this  lost  son  which 
leads  him  to  hail  with  joy  the  first  sign  of  his  return  is 
the  divine  love  which  does  not  despair  of  the  heedless, 
reckless  wanderer,  who  has  not  ceased  to  be  the  object  of 
the  divine  compassion  and  yearning.  The  justification  of 
Jesus'  method  is  found  alike  in  what  God  is  and  in  what  man 
is.  The  very  fact  that  the  man  is  lout  —  lost  to  his  true 
life  and  destiny,  yet  not  irrecoverably  so  —  moves  the  very 
heart  of  God  to  its  deepest  depths  of  pity  and  calls  into 
action  the  most  powerful  energies  of  divine  love.  Such  is 
the  estimate  —  so  contrary  to  the  common  judgment  of 
men  in  his  time  —  which  Jesus  teaches  that  God  puts  upon 
even  a  moral  outcast;  such  the  exultant  joy  with  which 
his  return  to  his  father's  bounty  and  love  is  celebrated; 
such  "  joy  is  there  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repent- 
eth"  (Lk.  XV.  7,  10).i 

1  "When  Jesus  made  His  own  Apologia  in  the  15th  chapter  of  St. 
Luke's  Gospel,  He  also  offered  their  apology  for  the  people.  They  were 
not  callous  and  hopeless  sinners,  only  sheep  that  have  wandered  from  the 
fold,  and  know  not  the  way  back  ;  not  useless  and  worthless  human 
stuif ,  but  souls  that  carried  beneath  the  rust  and  grime  the  stamp  of  their 
birth,  and  might  be  put  out  at  usury  ;  not  outcasts  whose  death  would  be 
a  good  riddance,  but  children  loved  and  missed  in  their  Father's  House. 
This  wreck,  Jesus  perpetually  insisted,  is  not  the  man  —  only  his  lower 
self,  ignorant,  perverted,  corrupt ;  the  other  self  lies  hidden  and  must  be 
released.  This  is  the  real  self,  and  when  it  is  realised  you  come  to  the 
man.  '  When  he  came  to  himself,'  said  Jesus  of  the  prodigal.  This  was 
Jesus'  reading  of  publicans  and  sinners,  — the  pariahs  of  that  civilisation. 
He  moved  among  the  people  with  a  sanguine  expectation  ;  ever  demand- 
ing achievements  of  the  most  unlikely,  never  knowing  when  he  might  not 
be  gladdened  by  a  response.  An  unwavering  and  unbounded  faith  in 
humanity  sustained  His  heart  and  transformed  its  subjects.     Zacchseus, 


HtTMAN   NATURE   AND   SINFULNESS  97 

(4)  Jesus  implied  in  his  teaching  that  despite  their 
sinfulness,  there  are  good  impulses  and  tendencies  in 
men.  He  regarded  the  great  majority  of  the  men  of  his 
time  as  still  susceptible  to  the  appeal  of  his  truth  and 
Kingdom.  As  he  moved  about  among  the  plain  people 
of  Galilee,  he  saw  in  them  the  prospect  of  a  rich  spiritual 
harvest  if  only  laborers  could  be  had  to  reap  it  (Mt.  ix. 
37,  38).  He  intimated  very  clearly  that  those  who  were 
popularly  regarded  as  most  depraved  were  not,  in  all 
cases,  v/orse  than  others,  and  that  there  were  noble  spirits 
among  the  despised  classes.  In  the  striking  parable  in 
which  he  teaches  the  nature  and  scope  of  neighbor-love 
(Lk.  X.  30-37)  he,  no  doubt,  purposely  selects  as  his 
example  of  the  absence  of  that  love  a  priest,  and  as  his 
illustration  of  its  exemplification  a  Samaritan.  All 
would  assume  that  a  priest  would  do  justice  and  love 
mercy,  and  all  would  agree  that  nothing  good  need  be 
sought  in  a  despised  Samaritan.  Jesus  shows  how  con- 
trary to  fact  this  judgment  may  be.  Goodness  may  be 
found  in  the  most  unexpected  quarter;  a  Samaritan  may 
excel  a  priest  in  Godlike  love.  This  is  not  an  allegorical 
reading  of  the  parable,  but  only  a  recognition  of  the 
naturalness  and  appropriateness  of  the  materials  out  of 
which  it  is  constructed. 

The  way  in  which  Jesus  spoke  of  children  is  not  with- 
out a  bearing  upon  his  doctrine  of  human  nature.  When 
he  wished  to  illustrate  the  qualities  which  should  charac- 
terize the  members  of  his  Kingdom,  he  took  a  little  child 
and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  his  hearers  and  said :  "  Except 
ye  turn,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  in  no  wise 
enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  heaven"  (Mt.  xviii.  3).  To 
what  but  the   unassuming  sense   of  dependence  and  the 

the  hated  tax-gatherer,  makes  a  vast  surrender,  and  shows  also  that  he  is 
a  son  of  Abraham.  St.  Mary  Magdelene,  the  by-word  of  society,  has  in 
her  the  passion  of  a  saint.  St.  Matthew  abandons  a  custom-house  to 
write  a  Gospel.  St.  John  leaves  his  nets  to  become  the  mystic  of  the 
ages.  St.  Peter  flings  off  his  weakness,  and  changes  into  the  rock  of  the 
Church.  With  everything  against  Him,  Jesus  treated  men  as  sons  of  God, 
and  His  optimism  has  had  its  vindication."  The  Mind  of  the  Master^  by 
Rev.  John  Watson,  D.D.  (1896),  pp.  238,  239. 


98  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

relative  innocence  of  childhood  could  he  have  referred  in 
so  speaking?  Had  Jesus  regarded  human  beings  as  totally 
depraved  from  the  very  beginning  of  life,  had  he  believed 
that  in  consequence  of  the  corrupt  nature  which  all  men 
inherit  at  birth  they  were  "  made  opposite  unto  all  tlmt  is 
spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that 
continually,"  ^  as  theology  has  so  often  taught,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  how  he  could  have  made  the  child-spirit  the 
test  of  fitness  for  his  Kingdom.  Of  such  persons  as  little 
children  are,  that  is,  of  those  who  have  a  childlike  disposi- 
tion and  character,  his  Kingdom  is  said  to  consist  (Mt. 
xix.  14;  Mk.  x.  14;  Lk.  xviii.  16).  How  could  Jesus 
say  this  if  he  did  not  see  natural  goodness  in  children ; 
if  human  nature  as  such  were  that  utterly  corrupt  and 
odious  thing  in  the  sight  of  God  which  it  has  so  often 
been  described  as  being?  Our  sources  warrant  no  such 
view  as  finding  any  support  in  the  language  of  Jesus. 
This  theory  of  human  nature  is  the  result  of  certain 
speculative  considerations  supported  by  isolated  texts  of 
Scripture  which  describe  the  dark  depths  of  sin  to  which 
men  may  and  often  do  descend.  Jesus  took  no  rose- 
colored  view  of  man  in  his  sinfulness,  but  he  did  not 
represent  all  men  as  being  as  bad  as  they  can  be  and  that 
from  the  very  moment  of  birth. 

Jesus  saw  in  men  a  mixture  of  good  and  evil.  At  his 
side  as  he  hung  upon  the  cross  was  a  robber.  Yet  even 
he  was  capable  of  a  vague  yearning  to  share  in  the  King- 
dom of  truth  and  holiness  and  was  promised  the  fellow- 
ship of  Christ  in  paradise  (Lk.  xxiii.  42,  43).  Zacchseus 
was  no  doubt  what  people  called  him,  a  "sinner,"  yet 
he  evinced  an  eager  interest  in  Jesus,  and  under  the 
inspiration  of  his  presence  and  teaching  quickly  responded 
to  the  requirements  of  the  life  of  love  and  truth  (Lk.  xix. 
1-10).  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the  Roman 
centurion  was  a  specially  religious  person.  Yet  he  was 
generous ;  he  had  built  a  synagogue  for  the  Jews  of  the 
town  where  he  was  stationed.  He  loved  his  servant  and 
believed  that  Jesus  had  power  to  heal  him.  He  was  a 
1  The  Larger  Westminster  Catechism,  Q.  25. 


HUMAN   NATURE   AND   SINFULNESS  99 

noble  Roman,  modest,  kind,  and  generous,  but  —  so  far  as 
our  source  informs  us  —  no  more.  Yet  Jesus  saw  in 
these  qualities  the  elements  of  a  greater  faith  than  he 
had  elsewhere  found  in  all  Israel ;  among  all  the  scribes, 
Pharisees,  and  priests  that  he  had  ever  met  he  had  not 
found  a  disposition  so  pleasing  to  God  as  that  of  this 
lieathen  soldier  (Lk.  vii.  9). 

Jesus'  view  of  mankind  was  not  one-sided  or  extreme. 
He  saw  men  as  they  were  —  neither  wholly  bad  nor  wholly 
good ;  ignorant,  perverted,  and  even  wilfully  wicked,  yet 
not  without  good  desires  and  aspirations ;  lost,  but  not 
hopeless.  In  all  their  unfilial  indifference  and  disobedi- 
ence they  were  still,  in  his  view,  sons  of  God,  susceptible 
to  the  appeal  of  a  Father's  love,  and  capable  both  of 
coming  to  themselves  —  their  true,  normal  selves  —  and 
of  returning  to  their  Father. 

(5)  The  hope  of  a  future  life  Jesus  grounds  upon  man's 
essential  kinship  to  God.  He  seems  not  to  have  spoken 
frequently  of  the  resurrection  life.  Belief  in  it  was  general 
in  his  time,  and  it  was  not  necessary  to  insist  upon  it. 
The  Sadducees,  however,  rejected  it,  and  presented  to 
Jesus  a  supposed  case  to  which  they  thought  it  could  not 
be  made  to  apply  (Mk.  xii.  18  sg.).  They  said:  If  a 
woman  becomes  the  wife  of  seven  brothers  successively, 
whose  wife  shall  she  be  in  the  resurrection  ?  The  supposi- 
tion was  intended  to  exhibit  the  absurdity  of  maintaining 
the  doctrine.  Jesus'  reply  turns  on  two  points.  In  the 
first  place,  the  objection  rests  upon  the  wholly  unwarranted 
assumption  that  the  future  life  must  be  like  this  —  a  sen- 
suous life  subject  to  the  same  conditions  and  relations 
which  obtain  here.  In  making  this  assumption  the  ob- 
jectors have  utterly  failed  to  estimate  justly  the  resources 
of  God.  The  God  whom  the  Scriptures  reveal  is  able  to 
provide  for  mankind  a  mode  of  life  to  which  no  such  con- 
ditions or  limitations  apply :  "  Ye  know  not  the  Scriptures, 
nor  the  power  of  God"  (v.  24).  The  objection  involves 
no  proof  of  the  absurdity  of  a  blessed  resurrection  life,  but 
is  only  an  evidence  of  the  limitations  of  the  Sadducean 
idea  of  it.     In  the  second  place,  Jesus  turns  to  the  "  Book 


100  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

of  Moses,"  which  they  estimated  so  highly  and  from  whose 
provisions  they  had  drawn  their  example  (v.  19),  and 
points  out  that  Jehovah  is  there  called  the  God  of  the 
patriarchs,  long  since  dead  (Ex.  iii.  6).  The  expression 
assumes,  not  merely  that  Jehovah  was  their  God  when 
living  on  earth,  but  that  he  is  their  God  still :  "  He  is  not 
the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living"  (?;.  27).  The 
passage,  therefore,  presupposes  a  continuing  relation,  a 
living  communion  between  these  persons  and  Jehovah. 
The  argument  of  Jesus  meets  the  specific  difficulty  by 
placing  the  whole  subject  upon  the  deepest  and  broadest 
basis  —  by  appealing  to  what  God  is  and  to  Avhat  man  is. 
The  hope  of  future  blessedness  is  grounded  on  the  bound- 
less resources  of  the  divine  love,  and  on  the  kinship  of 
man  to  God  which  fits  him  for  communion  with  God. 

We  next  observe  the  language  of  Jesus  respecting 
human  sinfulness.  Our  sources  do  not  represent  him  as 
speaking  of  the  origin  of  sin  or  as  discussing  its  specific 
nature.  On  the  contrary,  he  speaks  of  sin  as  a  fact  of 
common  observation  and  experience,  and  discloses  its 
nature  by  noting  its  manifestations. 

His  teaching  assumes  that  sin  is  universal  among  men. 
All  men  are  called  upon  to  repent.  He  indeed  speaks  of 
"  righteous  persons  who  need  no  repentance  "  (Lk.  xv.  7) 
in  contrast  to  "  sinners,"  but  it  is  evident  from  the  context 
that  he  is  speaking  ironically,  and  that  the  Pharisees  whom 
he  is  answering  are  "  righteous  "  only  in  their  own  estima- 
tion or  according  to  the  traditional  but  inadequate  stand- 
ards of  righteousness  which  obtained  at  the  time.  He 
gives  his  disciples  a  universal  form  of  prayer,  containing 
the  petition:  "Forgive  us  our  sins "  (Lk.  xi.  4).  Even 
the  most  loving  of  parents,  who  delight  to  give  good  gifts 
to  their  children,  are  themselves  "  evil "  (irovrjpoi^  Mt.  vii. 
11),  morally  imperfect,  sinful.  Men  are  assailed  on  every 
side  by  temptation,  blinded  in  their  spiritual  perceptions, 
perverted  by  worldliness.  The  lower  life  could  not  thus 
assert  its  power  over  them  if  it  did  not  find  a  ready  point 
of  contact  with  their  inner  life ;  if  the  wills  of  nten  were 
not  weakened  and  biassed  towards  false  objects  of  desire 


HUMAN   NATURE    AND    SINFULNESS  101 

and  striving.  Their  constant  prayer  needs  to  be  :  "  Lead 
us  not  into  temptation,  but  deliver  us  from  evil."  All 
men  are  sinful;  but  all  men  are  not  equally  so.  Jesus 
speaks  of  good  men,  who  bring  forth  out  of  the  good 
treasure  of  their  hearts  good  things,  as  well  as  of  evil  men 
who  do  the  opposite  (Mt.  xii.  35).  "Good"  and  "evil," 
as  applied  to  men,  are  relative  terms.  He  assumes  that 
the  eye  of  the  heart  may  be  healthy  and  steadfastly  directed 
to  the  true  good,  so  that  the  whole  moral  being  shall  be 
filled  with  heavenly  light  and  blessedness  (Mt.  vi.  22). 
Jesus'  estimate  of  men  was  generous.  He  measured  them 
more  by  what  they  desired  and  sought  than  by  their 
present  attainments.  He  laid  more  stress  upon  the  direc- 
tion in  which  men  were  going  than  upon  the  point  of 
progress  which  they  had  reached. 

Jesus  pictured  sin  as  having  its  seat  in  the  heart,  the 
inner  life,  the  sphere  of  motive  and  desire.  Hate  is  the 
source  of  murder  (Mt.  v.  22).  Lust  is  the  essence  of 
adultery  (Mt.  v.  28).  The  inner  life  rules  the  outer  life; 
the  thought  is  father  to  the  deed.  "  Out  of  the  abundance 
of  the  heart  the  mouth  speaketh"  (Mt.  xii.  34).  The 
character  determines  the  acts  and  words  of  men  as  a  tree 
the  quality  of  its  fruit  (Mt.  vii.  17-20;  xii.  33).  It  was 
because  Jesus  took  this  view  of  speech  and  action  that  he 
attached  such  significance  to  the  words  of  men :  "  By  thy 
words  shalt  thou  be  justified,  and  by  thy  words  shalt  thou 
be  condemned"  (Mt.  xii.  37).  Hence  Jesus  set  aside  the 
whole  Levitical  idea  of  defilement  by  external  acts  and 
contact  as  superficial.  A  man  is  defiled,  he  said,  not  by 
what  he  eats  or  touches,  but  by  what  he  does  with  evil 
motive  and  intent :  "  That  which  proceedeth  out  of  the 
man,  that  defileth  the  man.  For  from  within,  out  of  the 
heart  of  men,  evil  thoughts  proceed,  fornications,  thefts, 
murders,  adulteries,  covetings,  wickednesses,  deceit,  lascivi- 
ousness,  an  evil  eye,  railing,  pride,  foolishness :  all  these 
proceed  from  within,  and  defile  the  man  "  (Mk.  vii.  20-23). 
But  even  where  the  inner  life  is  sincere  and  pure  in  pur- 
pose, men  are  liable  to  be  led  astray  by  their  creaturely 
weakness.     Hence  in  the  trying  scenes  of  his  last  days, 


102  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

when  he  was  walking  in  the  shadow  of  the  cross,  Jesus 
warned  his  disciples  to  seek  divine  strength  that  their 
fidelity  to  him  might  not  be  overcome  by  doubt  and  fear, 
and  added :  "  The  spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is 
weak"  (Mk.  xiv.  38;  Mt.  xvi.  41);  in  their  hearts  they 
were  devoted  to  him,  eager  to  encourage  and  support  him, 
but  the  lower  nature,  the  dread  of  danger,  the  fear  of  death 
—  that  was  a  weakness  which  still  exposed  them  to  the 
temptation  to  abandon  him,  and  to  desert  his  cause. 

Sin  is  subject  to  a  development,  ranging  all  the  way 
from  ignorance  and  weakness  to  the  most  positive  and 
malignant  opposition  to  God  and  goodness.  To  such  an 
utter  moral  perversion  Jesus  seems  to  have  referred  in  what 
he  said  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit :  "  Verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  All  their  sins  shall  be  forgiven  unto  the  sons  of 
men,  and  their  blasphemies  wherewith  soever  they  shall 
blaspheme :  but  whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the 
Holy  Spirit  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an 
eternal  sin :  because  they  said.  He  hath  an  unclean  spirit  " 
(Mk.  iii.  28,  29;  Mt.  xii.  31,  32).  The  occasion  of  this 
saying  was  the  calumny  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  that 
Jesus  cast  out  demons  by  the  power  of  Beelzebub,  the 
prince  of  the  demons  ;  that  is,  they  attributed  his  benevo- 
lent works  to  an  evil  source.  In  reply,  Jesus  said  that 
slanders  against  himself  and  contempt  of  his  mission  as 
the  founder  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  might  be  condoned, 
but  that  to  deliberately  ascribe  deeds  of  pure  and  manifest 
benevolence  to  a  diabolical  source  was  to  fall  under  the 
woe  of  those  who  call  evil  good  and  good  evil  (Is.  v.  20) ; 
it  indicated  a  radical  perversion  of  the  moral  nature,  or  a 
powerful  tendency  towards  it,  in  which  the  soul  makes  evil 
its  good,  and  conversely.  The  words  of  Jesus  evidently 
describe  not  merely  a  specific  act  of  sin  in  itself  considered, 
but  an  act  as  illustrating  a  state  of  complete  moral  obdu- 
i-acy,  —  a  sin,  therefore,  which  is  "eternal"  in  its  conse- 
quences because  it  springs  from  fixed,  persistent  hatred  of 
goodness.  Such  a  fearful  goal  of  sinful  development  would 
involve  the  identification  of  the  will  with  evil  —  supreme 
wickedness,  culminating  in  hatred  of  the  most  manifest 


HUMAN   NATURE   AND   SINFULNESS  103 

divine  goodness,  and  excluding  the  possibility  of  recovery 
by  its  own  nature.  Jesus  is  not  represented  in  our  sources 
as  saying  explicitly  that  his  accusers  had  fully  realized  this 
extreme  moral  depravation,  but  the  fact  that  they  called 
his  gracious  alleviations  of  human  suffering  bad  instead  of 
good  —  thus  defaming  and  despising  the  Spirit  of  all  good- 
ness and  pity  which  wrought  in  his  merciful  ministry  — 
led  liim  to  hold  up  before  them  this  fearful  warning,  and 
must  be  regarded  as  showing  that  he  considered  it  possible 
for  human  sinfulness  to  culminate  in  that  utter  moral 
obliquity  which  he  describes  —  in  a  depravity  so  radical 
and  complete  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  recovery  to 
holiness. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  TRUE   RIGHTEOUSNESS 

The  fundamental  idea  which  lies  at  the  heart  of  all 
Jesus'  teaching  concerning  righteousness  is  the  idea  of 
love.  Love  to  God  and  love  to  man  —  that  is  the  basis  of 
every  obligation,  the  essence  of  the  whole  law  (Mk.  xii. 
28-31 ;  Mt.  xxii.  34-40).  Hence  when  he  sets  before  his 
disciples  the  lofty  ideal  of  perfection  (Mt.  v.  48),  we 
easily  discover  that  it  is  perfection  in  love  of  which  he 
speaks.  Love  is  Godlikeness,  and  therefore  includes  every 
specific  form  of  goodness.  It  is  not  a  particular  virtue, 
but  the  inner  principle  of  all  virtues.  It  is  just  at  this 
point  that  Jesus'  view  of  goodness  differed  so  widely  from 
that  which  was  current  in  his  time.  The  Pharisaic  right- 
eousness was  piecemeal;  it  was  made  up  of  a  round  of 
ceremonies  and  duties,  which  were  valued  for  their  own 
sake,  and  which  possessed  no  inner  unity.  Jesus  showed 
that  all  forms  of  real  goodness  may  be  reduced  to  a  com- 
mon principle  ;  that  all  virtues  are  essentially  one.  Hence 
he  taught  that  isolated  acts  of  religion  are  valueless  if  the 
basal  principle  of  all  true  religion  is  wanting.  The  wor- 
shipper who  is  coming  to  the  altar  while  a  wrong  done  his 
brother  is  still  unrighted,  would  better  leave  his  gift  un- 
offered  until  the  requirements  of  holy  love  are  satisfied  by 
requital  (Mt.  v.  23,  24). 

A  very  .slight  attention  ttrthH^ords  of  Christ  serves  to 
show  thatJovQ  and:  righteousness  are  for  him  practically 
synonymous,  or,  at  any  raTertll?i't"  righteousness  is  included 
in  love.  When  he  warns  his  hearers  that,  if  they  are  to 
enter  his  Kingdom,  their  righteousness  must  exceed  that  of 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees  (Mt.  v.  20),  he  at  once  proceeds 
to  illustrate  the  difference  by  showing  how  the  popular 

104 


THE   TRUE   RIGHTEOUSNESS  105 

theory  permits  anger  and  contempt  for  one's  fellows,  while 
he  demands  brotherly  love ;  how  the  legalists  condone 
impurity,  untruthfulness,  revenge,  and  hatred,  while  he 
demands  self-control,  truthfulness,  generosity,  and  benevo- 
lence towards  all  (Mt.  v.  21-48).  When  he  turns  to  the 
more  positive  illustration  of  his  doctrine  of  righteousness, 
he  shows  that  almsgiving,  prayer,  and  fasting  have  no 
value  if  done  for  their  own  sake,  and  in  order  to  make  a 
favorable  impression  upon  observers,  but  that  they  are  ac- 
ceptable to  God  only  when  done  from  sincere  interest  in 
men,  and  in  filial  reverence  for  God  (Mt.  vi.  1-18).  The 
"righteousness  of  God"  (Mt.  vi.  33)  Avhich  men  are  to 
seek,  means  the  righteousness  which  is  pleasing  to  God, 
and  the  context  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  that  it  is  accept- 
able, because  it  springs  from  love  to  God  and  man.  Other 
passages  confirm  this  conclusion.  When  "  a  certain  law- 
yer "  sought  to  put  Jesus  to  a  test  by  asking  from  him  a 
rule  for  attaining  eternal  life,  Jesus  drew  from  him,  by  a 
counter-question,  this  answer  to  his  own  inquiry :  "  Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with 
all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy 
mind ;  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  and  added :  "  Thou 
hast  answered  right :  this  do  and  thou  shalt  live  "  (Lk.  x. 
25-28).  To  the  same  question,  when  put  to  him  on  an- 
other occasion,  he  answered  by  citing  the  commandments 
(Mk.  X.  17-19),  Avhose  essential  substance  he  elsewhere 
defined  to  be  love  to  God  and  man  (Mt.  xxii.  40). 

From  these  considerations  it  is  evident  that  Jesus  placed 
the  true  righteousness  not  in  outward  actions,  however  ex- 
cellent or  useful,  but  in  the  state  of  the  heart.  He  demands 
right  conduct,  but  he  first  demands  right  character  as  its 
presupposition  and  guaranty.  Righteousness  is  primarily 
right  disposition.  This  view  completely  undermined  the 
current  legalism.  The  scribe  who  asked  him  which  was 
the  chief  commandment,  and  to  whom  he  replied  by  citing 
the  requirement  of  love,  discerned  the  radical  difference 
between  Jesus'  idea  and  the  popular  idea  of  righteousness, 
as  is  shown  by  his  reply :  Love  to  God  and  man  is,  as  you 
say,  more  than   all  our  offerings  and  sacrifices.      "And 


106  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

when  Jesus  saw  that  he  answered  discreetly,  he  said  unto 
him,  Thou  art  not  far  from  the  Kingdom  of  God "  (Mk. 
xii.  32-34).  It  was  a  long  step  towards  the  Kingdom  to 
see  the  difference  between  a  spiritual  and  a  ritualistic  con- 
ception of  righteousness  and  to  appreciate  the  superiority 
of  the  former.  The  parabolic  sayings  about  the  "  new 
cloth  "  and  the  "  new  wine  "  ( Mk.  ii.  21,  22)  indicate  that 
Jesus  intended  his  disciples  to  be  free  from  the  prevalent 
rules  of  a  formal  and  legal  piety.  He  speaks  neither  for 
nor  against  fasting,  but  gives  his  disciples  a  principle 
which  will  make  them  independent  in  their  judgment  and 
action  upon  all  such  subjects.  His  teaching  is  new  cloth, 
and  must  not  be  stitched  onto  the  old  garment  of  Judaism  ; 
it  is  new  wine,  and  must  not  be  confined  in  the  old  wine- 
skins of  ceremonialism.  This  is  but  a  figurative  way  of 
saying  that  his  religion  has  its  own  genius  and  must  create 
its  own  externals.  It  is  not  a  system  of  outward  forms 
and  observances,  but  a  law  of  spirit  and  of  life.  A  similar 
thought  may  have  been  veiled  in  the  saying  which  his 
enemies  made  a  ground  of  accusation  against  him :  "  I 
will  destroy  this  temple  that  is  made  with  hands,  and  in 
three  days  I  will  build  another  made  without  hands  " 
(Mk.  xiv.  58).  This  new  temple  is  probably  the  spiritual 
sanctuary  in  which  those  offerings  shall  be  presented 
which  are  most  acceptable  to  him  who  "desires  mercy 
and  not  sacrifice"  (Mt.  ix.  13;  xii.  7).  The  lesson  of  the 
parable  of  the  Royal  Wedding  (Mt.  xxii.  1  sq.')  points  in 
the  same  direction.  The  wedding  garment  in  which  the 
guests  are  required  to  present  themselves  is  that  true 
righteousness  which  corresponds  to  the  nature  of  Christ's 
Kingdom.  Participation  in  the  Kingdom  is  conditioned 
upon  a  sincere  disposition  to  do  the  will  of  God  —  and 
this  will  is  constantly  represented  as  a  will  of  holy  love 
and  as  requiring  in  men  conformity  to  itself  in  disposition 
and  action. 

The  principles  which  emerge  from  the  teaching  thus  far 
considered  throw  light  upon  Jesus'  doctrine  of  fulfilment. 
This  doctrine,  in  its  general  features,  we  have  already  con- 
sidered.    It  remains  to  inquire  into  its  application  to  the 


THE   TRUE   KIGHTEOUSNESS  107 

observance  of  the  ritual  law  which  constituted  the  sub- 
stance of  righteousness  for  the  Jewish  mind.  So  far  as  we 
know,  Jesus  did  not  dwell  directly  upon  the  subject.  He 
did,  however,  recognize  a  difference  in  the  importance 
of  various  commandments  (Mt.  xxii.  38 ;  cf.  v.  19),  and 
strongly  condemned  those  Avho  scrupulously  observed  the 
most  trifling  traditional  enactments,  and  who  "  passed  over 
judgment  and  the  love  of  God"  (Lk.  xi.  42).  Such  ex- 
pressions, taken  in  connection  with  those  already  noticed 
about  sacrifices  and  ceremonial  defilement,  leave  no  doubt 
that  Jesus  set  an  entirely  secondary  value  upon  the  cere- 
monial law.  But  this  estimate  of  the  cultus  did  not  in- 
volve him  in  a  hostile  or  destructive  attitude  towards  it. 
Here  as  always  his  principle  was  that  of  fulfilment,  not 
that  of  destruction. 

How  did  he  carry  this  out  with  reference  to  the  ritual 
law?  We  are  left  to  infer  his  attitude  on  this  subject 
from  the  way  in  which  he  refers  to  certain  acts  of  Old 
Testament  piety  and  from  his  general  principle  of  fulfil- 
ment. We  find  him  observing  the  ancient  customs  and 
usages  of  Judaism  without  protest.  He  counsels  the  leper 
whom  he  cured  to  go  to  the  priest  and  perform  the  rites 
which  were  prescribed  by  the  law  in  such  cases  (Mk.  i.  44 ; 
cf.  Lk.  xvii.  14).  He  observed  the  sabbath  and  kept  the 
passover  (Mk.  xiv.  12).  So  far  from  making  any  protest 
against  fasting,  —  the  practice  of  which  rested  mainly  upon 
tradition,  rather  than  upon  legal  enactment,  —  he  says  that 
his  disciples  will  fast  (Mk.  ii.  20),  and,  in  contrast  to  the 
mock  humility  of  the  Pharisees,  he  directs  his  disciples  to 
put  on  an  aspect  of  cheerful  sincerity  when  they  fast  (Mt. 
vi.  16-18).  But,  as  we  have  seen,  Jesus  speaks  of  fasting 
as  voluntary,  and  not  as  imposed,  and,  by  parity  of  reason- 
ing, the  same  would  hold  good  of  similar  acts  of  devotion, 
while  the  sabbath  (and,  presumably,  other  similar  institu- 
tions) took  its  place  in  subordination  to  the  welfare  of 
man. 

The  attitude  of  Jesus  towards  the  various  forms  and 
institutions  of  his  ancestral  religion  thus  appears  to  have 
been  that  of  respect  and  conformity  combined  with  freedom. 


108  THE    SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

Formally  considered,  these  two  standpoints  may  seem  in- 
consistent, but  they  really  are  not.  They  are  adjusted 
and  harmonized  by  the  principle  of  fulfilment.^  Jesus 
was  not  bound  by  the  letter  of  the  law,  but  penetrated  to 
its  spirit.  He  always  observed  the  law  in  its  deepest 
meaning,  its  true  divine  idea.  For  his  mind  there  was 
some  religious  idea  embodied  in  every  part  of  the  Old 
Testament  system.  That  idea  he  conserved  and  perpetu- 
ated. Hence  he  said  that  no  smallest  part  of  the  law 
should  escape  the  process  of  fulfilment  (Mt.  v.  18),  and 
that  his  disciples  must  appreciate  and  apply  this  same 
constructive  principle,  and  must  in  their  teaching  and 
work  maintain  the  continuity  of  revelation  —  the  link  of 
connection  between  his  gospel  and  the  Old  Testament 
religion  (v.  19).  Thus  he  fulfilled  the  ritual  law  by 
preserving  and  embodying  in  his  teaching  and  person  the 
essential  moral  and  religious  truths  which  found  pro- 
visional expression  in  it.  The  sacrificial  system  he  fulfilled 
by  his  own  teaching  and  life  of  sacrificial  love.  The  laws 
against  ceremonial  defilement  he  fulfilled  by  his  law  and 
his  life  of  purity  in  heart.  The  practice  of  fasting  he 
fulfilled  by  his  principles  of  humility  and  penitence  before 
God.  How  far  men  should  continue  to  observe  the  outer 
forms  which,  under  the  Old  Testament,  had  been  the 
vesture  of  these  truths,  he  did  not  say.  He  did  not  speak 
against  such  observance  except  where  it  became  an  obsta- 
cle to  man's  true  good.  He  did  not  commend  it  except 
where  it  was  adapted  to  promote  man's  well-being.  On 
this  subject  he  gave  no  formal  rule,  preferring  to  leave 
the  application  of  his  principles  to  the  freedom  and  con- 
science of  his  disciples.  And  it  is  easy  to  see  that  this 
wisdom  stands  justified  of  all  her  children,  since  it  is 
only  by  the  exercise  of  such  liberty  that  the  real  problems 
of  the  Christian  life  could  be  wrought  out.  Formal  dis- 
tinctions and  rules,  mechanically  followed,  would  have 
kept  the  Church  essentially  Jewish  in  spirit,  and  would 
only  have  produced  another  type  of  scribal  righteousness. 

1  A  clear  discussion  of  this  adjustment  will  be  found  in  Bovon's  Tlieol. 
du  N.  Test.  I.  390  sq. 


THE   TRUE   RIGHTEOUSNESS  109 

Had  Jesus  taken  this  method,  apostolic  Christianity  would, 
indeed,  have  escaped  the  friction  and  conflict  which  it 
experienced  in  striving  to  free  itself  from  Jewish  limita- 
tions and  to  attain  to  a  clear  consciousness  of  its  true 
nature,  but  it  could  not  have  been  the  living  and  growing 
affair  that  it  was,  and,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  would  never 
have  called  out  the  epistles  of  that  apostle  who  was  the 
chief  exponent  and  defender  of  the  freedom  of  the  Chris- 
tian from  the  law,  and  of  the  essential  spirituality,  con- 
pleteness,  and  sufficiency  of  the  gospel  of  Christ. 

Recurring  now  to  "  the  flrst  and  great  commandment," 
the  question  arises :  What  did  Jesus  mean  by  supreme 
love  to  God  ?  His  meaning  must  be  inferred  from  the 
way  in  which  he  spoke  of  the  right  attitude  and  action  of 
men  towards  God.  Perfect  truthfulness  and  sincerity  in 
worshipping  God  are  certainly  elements  of  love  to  him. 
An  ostentatious,  piety  practised,  not  in  true  reverence  and 
gratitude  to  God,  but  to  attract  the  notice  of  men,  is  in- 
consistent with  love  to  God.  In  contrast  to  this  Jesus 
shows  that  unselfish  benevolence  and  sincere,  simple  devo- 
tion express  the  disposition  which  God  requires.  He  who 
should  possess  the  spirit  of  the  prayer  which  Jesus  gave 
his  disciples  would  be  fulfilling  the  command  to  love  God. 
Love  to  God  is  the  filial  spirit  on  man's  part  which  corre- 
sponds to  God's  fatherly  love  to  man  (Mt.  vi.  1-18). 

^n  essential  element  iiilqye_toGmLis_liumility  before 
him  —  a  sense  of  his  greatness  and  goodness,  and  a  corre- 
sponding sense  of  our  weakness  and  sin.  To  this  love 
belongs  a  reverent  fear  of  liim  in  whose  hands  is  human 
destiny,  and  whose  holy  displeasure  must  be  kindled  against 
sin  (Mt.  X.  28).  Hence  Jesus  pictured  the  acceptable  wor- 
shipper as  humbly  confessing  his  sins  before  God  (Lk. 
xviii.  13),  and  described  God's  true  servants  as  disclaim- 
ing any  special  merit  for  doing  their  obvious  duty  (Lk. 
xvii.  10).  He  who  has  the  true  disposition  towards  God 
will  thankfully  and  humbly  recognize  the  divine  grace, 
and  not  his  own  meritorious  claims,  as  the  ground  of  his 
confidence  and  hope. 

The  positive  side  of  this  reverential  fear  and  humility  is 


110  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

trust  in  God,  iricrTi^  deov  (Mk.  xi.  22),  an  unshaken  confi- 
dence in  God,  which  is  never  dismayed  at  the  changes  or 
surprises  of  life.  He  who  has  this  faith  will  not  be  dis- 
tracted by  anxious  care  concerning  the  things  of  this  life. 
He  will  have  the  single  eye — a  clear  discernment  of  life's 
true  good,  which  will  hold  all  his  purposes  in  unity  and 
concentration.  He  will  not  attempt  the  impossible  task 
of  serving  two  masters.  He  will  make  God  the  supreme 
object  of  his  choice  and  service,  will  seek  first  his  Kingdom 
and  righteousness,  confident  that  the  Father,  who  knows 
all  his  needs,  will  confer  the  minor  benefits  (Mt.  vi.  22-34). 
This  confidence  that  God  will  approve  and  bless  us  in  all 
our  life  if  we  seek  first  his  Kingdom  and  righteousness, 
and  seek  all  other  things  second,  is  the  faith  which  "re- 
moves mountains  "  (Mk.  xi.  23) ;  it  is  adequate  to  the 
greatest  difficulties  and  perplexities  of  life.  It  steadies, 
strengthens,  and  unifies  all  our  efforts,  preventing  us  from 
wasting  our  energies  by  dividing  life  between  two  incon- 
sistent objects  and  from  wearing  our  hearts  out  by  cor- 
roding cares,  needless  anxieties,  and  unbelieving  fears. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Jesus  would  include  this  con- 
centration of  life  upon  spiritual  good  and  the  trustful 
spirit  which  it  inspires,  in  that  love  to  God  which  com- 
prises all  forms  of  service  which  we  can  render  to  him. 

This  aspect  of  love  will  express  itself  in  prayer.  He 
who  seeks  first  God's  Kingdom  will  desire  that  his  King- 
dom may  come  among  men ;  he  who  makes  God's  holy 
requirements  his  primary  interest  will  desire  that  his  will 
be  done  on  earth  universally  (Mt.  vi.  10).  From  such 
considerations  the  meaning  of  supreme  love  to  God  clearly 
emerges.  It  is  the  choice  of  God  as  the  ground  and 
source  of  all  true  good.  Such  love  implies  a  knowledge 
of  God's  perfections.  These  our  Saviour  adequately  dis- 
closed in  his  teaching  and  life.  He  then  called  upon  men 
to  seek  and  find  their  true  good  in  God ;  to  recognize  him 
in  their  lives,  to  live  as  his  true  sons,  to  grow  in  moral 
likeness  to  him.  To  choose,  reverence,  and  obey  God  as 
revealed  by  Christ  —  that  is,  to  love  him.  To  interpret 
human  life  as  a  reflex  of  the  divine  life  and  to  live  it  in 


THE   TRUE   RIGHTEOUSNESS  111 

reverent  recognition  of  God  and  in  conscious  dependence 
upon  him  —  to  love  that  which  he  loves,  to  desire  for  our- 
selves that  which  he  desires  for  us  —  that  means  to  love 
God  with  all  the  heart,  mincl,  soul,  and  strength. 

Such  is  the  first  and  great  commandment,  and  the 
second  is  like  it.  In  saying  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thj^self  "  (Mk.  xii.  31 ;  Mt.  xxii.  39),  Jesus^ssumed 
that  men  know  well  enough  what  is  due  to  themselves. 
The  import  of  the  commandment  is :  Be  as  careful  and 
discerning  about  your  duties  to  others  as  you  are  about 
theirs  to  you ;  be  as  ready  to  confer  as  to  receive  a  benefit. 
An  amplification  of  the  same  commandment  is  found  in 
the  "  golden  rule  "  :  ''  All  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that 
men  should  do  unto  you,  even  so  do  ye  also  unto  them : 
for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets  "  (Mt.  vii.  12).  The 
maxim  rests  upon  the  truth  that  the  rights  of  others 
are  equal  to  our  own ;  that  is,  upon  the  essential  equality 
of  all  men  before  God.  How  he  would  apply  it  in  prac- 
tice we  may  see  from  various  specific  ins  tractions. 

To  the  term  ''  neighbor  "  Jesus  gave  the  broadest  inter- 
pretation. One's  neighbor  is  any  person  with  whom  he 
comes  into  relation.  This  idea  is  strikingly  presented  in 
the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan.  It  was  in  answer  to 
the  question  "Who  is  my  neighbor?"  that  Jesus  told  the 
story  of  the  man  who  was  travelling  from  Jerusalem  to 
Jericho  and  fell  among  robbers  who  stripped  him  and 
wounded  him  and  left  him  half  dead.  Now  it  was  a  de- 
spised Samaritan  who,  by  showing  kindness  to  the  unfor- 
tunate man,  proved  himself  to  be  his  "neighbor"  (Lk.  x. 
29-37).  Men  are  neighbors  whenever  they  can  serve  and 
help  one  another,  and  they  are  not  less  so  because  of  na- 
tional or  social  differences  or  class  prejudices  which  may 
exist  between  them.  To  love  one's  neighbor  is  to  love  all 
one's  fellow-men  without  exception,  and  to  be  willing  to 
do  them  good  as  occasion  may  offer. 

The  same  view  of  neighbor-love  is  emphasized  from  an- 
other side  in  the  teaching  concerning  love  to  one's  enemies. 
One's  neighbors  do  not  consist  merely  of  his  friends,  but  of 
those  who  hate  and  persecute  him.      To  them  also  men 


112  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

must  be  ready  to  do  good  and  thus  prove  themselves  to  be 
sons  of  their  Father  in  heaven,  for  he  blesses  all,  the  evil 
as  well  as  the  good  (Mt.  v.  43-48).  In  these  two  sayings 
Jesus  struck  down  the  two  great  barriers  to  universal  love 
and  mutual  helpfulness  among  men,  class  prejudice  and 
personal  enmity.  Both  of  these  passions  were  common 
and  powerful  in  his  time.  For  the  Jew,  "  neighbor  "  was 
synonymous  with  his  fellow-countryman.  He  had  little 
sense  of  humanity.  It  was  also  common  to  give  a  private 
interpretation  to  "neighbor,"  and  then  to  draw  the  infer- 
ence that  since  men  were  commanded  to  love  their  friends 
only,  they  were  free  to  hate  their  enemies.  Both  limita- 
tions are  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  very  idea  of  love, 
which  is  a  universal  principle,  since  it  has  its  source  and 
ground  in  the  absolute  goodness.  To  impose  such  arbi- 
trary and  personal  limitations  ujDon  love  is,  indeed,  natural 
and  excusable  in  the  heathen  who  do  not  know  God.  But 
something  more  than  this  is  expected  of  those  who  know 
God  as  the  All-loving  and  the  All-bountiful.  They  must  not 
stop  short  with  a  partial  idea  of  love,  but  rise  to  the  idea 
and  realization  of  its  completeness  and  universality ;  their 
ideal  must  be  the  perfect  love  of  the  God  whom  they  know, 
not  the  prejudiced  generosity  and  the  narrow  beneficence 
of  the  deities  whom  the  heathen  worship  (Mt.  v.  47,  48). 
In  this  way  Jesus  shows  how  the  right  relations  of  men 
to  each  other  are  grounded  in  the  nature  of  God.  Man 
realizes  his  own  nature  only  in  likeness  to  God.  Love  to 
God  involves  likeness  to  him,  and  love  to  men  is  the  exer- 
cise towards  them  of  Godlike  love,  and  thus  the  second 
commandment  is  seen  to  be  like  the  first,  because  it  has  in 
the  first  its  logical  basis  and  warrant. 

Love  to  others  is  to  be  unselfish.  Its  benefactions  are 
not  to  be  bestowed  with  a  view  to  receiving  as  much  in 
return  (Mt.  v.  42 ;  Lk.  xiv.  13,  14),  but  from  sincere  good- 
will. Worldly  possessions  are  to  be  so  used  for  the  good 
of  others  that  they  shall  be  the  means  of  establishing 
eternal  friendships  (Lk.  xvi.  9).  The  value  of  all  service 
rendered  to  God  or  to  men  lies  in  the  love  out  of  which  it 
springs,  and  not  in  the  outward  form  or  measure  of  the 


THE   TRUE   RIGHTEOUSNESS  113 

action.  Hence  the  poor  widow's  two  mites  were  greater 
than  all  the  large  gifts  of  the  rich  to  the  temple  treasury, 
because  they  represented  more  self-sacrificing  love  (Mk. 
xii.  41-44). 

Love  requires  an  unlimited,  though  not  an  uncondi- 
tional, forgiveness  of  those  who  do  us  injur}^  The  for- 
giving spirit  cannot  set  for  itself  any  arbitrary  limit  (Ait. 
xviii.  21,  22).  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  however,  forgive- 
ness cannot  be  effected  unless  the  offending  party  sincerely 
repents  of  having  done  the  injury  (Lk.  xvii.  4).  The 
principle  of  Godlikeness  does  not  require  men  to  forgive 
unconditionally.  God  himself  does  not  forgive  without 
repentance  and  confession.  Indeed,  we  may  say  that  he 
cannot,  for  forgiveness  is  a  mutual  affair,  and  can  be 
realized  only  in  reconciliation.  If  the  conditions  are  not 
fulfilled  on  one  side,  there  may,  indeed,  be  a  perfect  readi- 
ness to  forgive  on  the  other,  but  there  can  be  no  actual 
bestowment  of  forgiveness.  But  we  must  ever  be  ready 
to  forgive  as  soon  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  condition  of 
repentance  makes  forgiveness  morally  possible.  In  this 
sense  it  must  be  true  that  we  have  already  forgiven  (qf. 
Mt.  vi.  12 :  0)9  fcal  r/fxel';  a^r^tcaixev  tol<;  oi^eXeVai?  tJ/xcoi^) 
those  who  still  owe  us  repentance  or  requital.  Such  will- 
ingness to  forgive  others  conditions  the  divine  forgiveness 
of  us  (Mt.  vi.  14,  15),  not  because  the  divine  forgiveness 
is  grudgingly  granted,  but  because  the  desire  for  Godlike- 
ness is  the  essential  condition  on  which  alone  men  can 
receive  spiritual  blessing  from  God.  Forgiveness  is  an 
activity  of  love,  and  if  men  repudiate  the  principle  of  love 
by  refusing  to  forgive,  they  thereby  close  their  lives  to 
that  fellowship  with  God  which  the  divine  forgiveness 
implies.  Those  who  will  not  love  their  fellow-men  banish 
themselves  from  the  divine  favor  and  fellowship.  These 
thoughts  are  presented  in  the  parable  of  the  Unmerciful 
Servant  (Mt.  xviii.  23-35). 

Another  aspect  of  the  same  teaching  appears  in  the  com- 
mand against  judging.  Those  who  unwarrantably  and 
uncharitably  judge  their  fellows  show  thereby  their  want 
of  love,  and  thus  expose  themselves  to  God's  unfavorable 


114  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

judgment  (Mt.  vii.  1,  2).  A  censorious  spirit  towards  others 
springs  from  a  bad  heart.  Those  who  have  no  charit}^  for 
others'  faults  commonly  show  thereby  that  they  have  no 
consciousness  of  their  own.  Hence,  Jesus  calls  the  man 
who  severely  criticises  others,  and  does  not  correct  his  own 
faults,  a  hypocrite  (vii.  3-5).  But  while  love  excludes 
hasty  and  censorious  judging,  it  does  not  require  an  indis- 
criminating  approval  of  all  men,  or  a  mere  good-natured 
indifference  to  their  actions.  One  who  does  an  injury  is 
to  be  rebuked  as  frankly  as  he  is  to  be  freely  forgiven, 
upon  repentance  (Lk.  xvii.  3  ;  Mt.  xviii.  15  sg.) .  All  men 
are  not  to  be  treated  alike.  The  disciples  were  counselled 
not  to  waste  their  efforts  where  they  could  do  no  good. 
Love  may  expend  its  labor  in  vain  if  it  is  not  discrimi- 
nating and  wise  (Mt.  vii.  6  ;  x.  16)  .^ 

It  maybe  asked:  Does  not  love  to  God  and  man  in- 
volve the  relinquishment  of  self-development?  On  the 
contrary,  Jesus  teaches  that  the  opposite  is  the  case.  He 
that  gives  his  life  is  sacrificial  and  serving  love  truly 
saves  it.  He  that  withholds  his  life  in  selfish  isolation 
loses  it  (Mt.  x.  39;  Mk.  viii.  35).  Love  is  the  guaranty 
of  self-perfection.  In  love  to  God  man  fulfils  his  nature, 
for  God  is  man's  eternal  prototype.  Only  through  love, 
therefore,  do  men  become  like  their  Father  in  heaven ; 
only  through  love  do  they  realize  their  own  perfection  as 
sons  of  God.  Men  can  neither  truly  love  themselves  nor 
their  fellows  unless  they  love  God,  because  the  meaning 
and  destiny  of  the  life  of  all  men  are  grounded  in  the 
nature  of  God,  the  perfect  pattern  of  all  goodness.  He 
who  makes  God  the  object  of  his  supreme  choice  chooses 
the  "  good  part "  (Lk.  x.  42)  ;  he  finds  the  true  worth  of 
life,  not  in  perishable  gains,  but  in  the  imperishable  treas- 
ures of  moral  and  spiritual  achievement  (Mt.  vi.  19,  20). 
Such  a  person  becomes  "  rich  towards  God  "  (Lk.  xii.  20), 
and  so  fulfils  his  destiny. 

Jesus  pictures  the  life  of  love  as  an  eager  and  strenuous 

1  M^  Kplvere  —  Nolite  judicare  sine  scientia,  amove,  necessitate.  Tamen 
canis  pro  cane,  et  porcuspro  porco  habendus  est  (Bengel,  Gnomon  N.  2'., 
ad  loc,  Mt.  vii.  1). 


THE   TRUE   RIGHTEOUSNESS  115 

one.  It  is  represented  by  a  narrow  gate  and  a  straitened 
way  (Mt.  vii.  13,  14).  It  is  strict  and  exacting,  and  calls 
for  arduous  endeavor.  Hence,  Jesus  often  represented 
this  life  by  parables  which  teach  the  necessity  of  work, 
watchfulness,  and  fidelity.  "  Why  stand  ye  here  all  the 
day  idle?"  is  the  challenge  of  the  master  of  the  vineyard. 
Christ's  disciples  are  like  laborers  (Mt.  xx.  1  sq.') ;  they 
are  like  servants  who  watch  for  the  return  of  their  lord 
(Lk.  xii.  36  s^.),  or  who  are  entrusted  with  the  use  of 
their  master's  wealth  (Lk.  xix.  11  sq. ;  Mt.  xxv.  14  sq.'). 
Thus  is  the  requirement  of  labor,  the  necessity  of  fidelity 
insisted  upon.  Yet  it  is  not  merely  the  amount  of  work 
done  by  Avhich  faithfulness  is  measured.  The  faithful  use 
of  one  talent  would  be  as  acceptable  as  the  faithful  use  of 
ten  (Mt.  xxv.  27).  Those  who  enter  the  vineyard  at  the 
eleventh  hour  are  graciously  rewarded  with  the  same 
wages  as  those  who  worked  from  the  early  morning  (Mt. 
XX.  9,  15).  The  services  which  love  renders  cannot  be 
quantitatively  measured.  They  take  their  value  from  the 
disposition  out  of  which  they  spring.  Hence  the  reward 
of  righteousness  is  not  a  mere  quid  jyro  quo  payment.  It  is 
a  gracious  and  generous  recognition  by  the  divine  love  of 
something  kindred  to  itself.  Hence  a  small  service,  done 
from  love,  is  more  highly  estimated  than  the  greatest  deeds 
and  achievements  in  which  love  is  wanting. 

Love  does  not  involve  an  ascetic  renunciation  of  the 
world.  Jesus  did  not  teach  contempt  for  the  world  or  for 
material  possessions.  He  recognized  the  perils  and  tempta- 
tions of  riches,  but  taught  that  they  might  be  so  used  as 
to  make  for  one  eternal  friends  (Lk.  xvi.  9).  Earthly 
goods  are  of  secondary  concern,  but  as  such  they  are 
necessary,  and  "shall  be  added"  by  the  Father  to  the 
great  primary  good  which  his  children  are  to  "  seek  first " 
(Mt.  vi.  33). 

The  attitude  of  Jesus  towards  the  world  was  natural, 
healthy,  and  genial.  He  interested  himself  in  what  we 
call  common  things,  —  the  familiar  processes  of  nature,  the 
social  life  and  employments  of  ordinary  people.  His 
parables   are   mainly   constructed  of  materials  which  he 


116  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

found  in  nature's  common  moods.  This  does  not  mean 
that  Jesus  lowered  the  tone  of  his  mind  from  the  sublime 
to  the  common,  but  that  he  saw  the  sublimity  in  the  so- 
called  common ;  that  his  mind  ennobled  nature's  ordinary 
processes  by  seeing  a  divine  meaning  and  beauty  in  them. 
Nature  was  to  him  the  living  garment  in  which  the  Eternal 
had  robed  his  mysterious  loveliness.  Hence  he  saw  in  the 
descending  rain,  the  instincts  of  birds,  the  beauty  of  flowers, 
the  radiation  of  the  sun's  light  and  heat,  emblems  and 
suggestions  of  the  grace  and  beauty  of  the  Father.  There- 
fore the  world  teemed  with  illustrations  of  his  spiritual 
truth.  The  fields,  the  sky,  and  the  common  life  of  men 
were  full  of  analogies  to  the  methods  of  God  in  providing 
for  the  spiritual  wants  of  his  children,  —  replete  with 
parables  of  the  divine  Father  seeking  his  lost  sons. 

Jesus  participated  in  the  harmless  joys  of  social  life.  He 
was  at  a  feast  which  Levi  made  in  his  honor  (Lk.  v.  29) 
and  also  at  the  home  of  Simon  (Lk.  vii.  37),  of  Martha  and 
Mary  (Lk.  x.  40),  and  of  an  influential  Pharisee  (Lk.  xi. 
37),  probably  on  a  sabbath.^  He  sought  the  company  of 
those  whom  he  hoped  to  win  to  the  acceptance  of  his 
truth  (Lk.  xix.  5),  and  did  not  refuse  the  hospitality  of 
the  despised  classes  (Mk.  ii.  15  j  Lk.  vii.  29).  For  this 
his  enemies  called  him  "  a  glutton  and  a  winebibber  "  (Lk. 
vii.  34).  He  was  no  gloomy  ascetic,  no  austere  despiser  of 
life's  blameless  enjoyments.  He  favored  no  morbid  and 
unnatural  estimation  of  self-denial  for  its  own  sake. 

Jesus  strenuously  maintained  the  sacredness  of  filial 
duty  and  of  the  famil}^  relation.  Temple  offerings  might 
better  be  withheld,  he  said,  than  taken  from  the  support  of 
needy  parents  (Mk.  vii.  10-13).  The  obligation  of  con- 
jugal fidelity  would  exclude  even  the  impure  look  (Mt.  v. 
27,  28)  ;  Jesus  treats  the  marriage-bond  as  indissoluble. 
Against  the  appeal  of  the  Jews  to  the  permission  of  the 
law  to  give  a  writing  of  divorcement  or  separation  (Deut. 
xxiv.  1)  in  justification  of  divorce  at  will,  he  declared  that 
this  regulation  was  a  concession  to  a  rude  state  of  society, 

1  See  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  II.  205  (Bk,  V. 
ch.  xii.). 


THE   TRUE   RIGHTEOUSNESS  117 

and  he  appealed  in  turn  to  the  primitive  divine  decree  at 
creation  (Gen.  i.  27  ;  ii.  24).  "From  the  beginning  of  the 
creation,  male  and  female  made  he  them.  For  this 
cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall 
cleave  to  his  wife;  and  the  twain  shall  become  one  flesh" 
(Mk.  X.  6-8).  He  gives  no  sanction  to  the  dissolution  of 
the  marriage-tie,  but  asserts  its  perpetual  obligation  (Mk. 
X.  9-12;  Lk.xvi.  18). i 

The  institution  of  private  property  Jesus  distinctly 
recognized.  He  used  the  relation  of  landowners,  house- 
holders, and  stewards  to  illustrate  the  truths  of  his  King- 
dom. He  warned  against  covetousness  (Lk.  xii.  15)  and 
commanded  generosity  (Mt.  v.  40-42),  but  recognized 
the  right  of  possession  (Lk.  xvi.  9-11).  The  demand 
made  of  the  rich  young  man  to  sell  all  that  he  had  and 
give  to  the  poor  (Mk.  x.  21,  22)  was  evidently  made  in 
view  of  his  special  character  and  circumstances;  no  such 
requirement  was  ever  made  of  any  other  person.  Zacchseus 
retained  half  his  property  and  might  have  retained  it  all 
(Lk.  xix.  8).  The  institution  of  private  property  in  land 
and  in  goods  was  established  and  recognized  in  immemorial 
usage  ;  Jesus  made  no  objection  to  it.  But  he  warned  men 
against  its  dangers  and  abuses,  thereby  recognizing  all  the 
more  clearly  its  true  and  proper  function  in  the  moral 
order  of  society.  But  all  one's  possessions  and  relation- 
shi]3S  must  be  held  subject  to  the  supreme  duties  of 
discipleship  (Lk.  xiv.  26,  33). 

Jesus  took  no  part  in  political  life.  But  evidence  is  not 
wanting  that  he  felt  an  interest  in  the  civil  institutions 
into  which  society  in  his  time  was  organized.  He  refused 
to  take  sides  either  for  or  against  the  Roman  domination, 
but  he  clearly  recognized  civil  as  well  as  religious  duty 
in  the  saying :  "  Render  unto  Csesar  the  things  that  are 
Caesar's,  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's "  (Mk. 
xii.  17).     He  was  a  loyal   and  obedient   citizen    of   the 

1  Matthew's  exceptive  clauses  wapeKTOs  \6yov  iropveias,  fxrj  eirl  iroppeig. 
(v.  32  ;  xix.  9)  have  no  parallel  in  Mark  or  Luke.  See  Wendt,  Lehre 
Jesu,  p.  59  ;  Weiss,  Life  of  Christ,  II.  150,  294  (Bk.  III.  eh.  x.,  Bk.  IV. 
ch.  viii.). 


118  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

country  in  which  he  lived.  He  respected  its  customs  and 
obeyed  its  laws.  When  the  question  of  the  payment  of 
tribute  for  the  support  of  the  temple-services  arose,  he 
recommended  conformity  to  the  recognized  usage  of  his 
people  (Mt.  xvii.  24-27). 

Thus  in  Jesus'  idea  of  righteousness  we  observe  a  per- 
fect combination  of  lofty  ideality  with  a  natural  and 
genuine  interest  in  common  life  and  common  things.  For 
his  mind  there  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any  incon- 
sistency between  these.  The  ideality  of  his  view  did  not 
make  common  things  insignificant  or  contemptible.  The 
ideal  transfigured  the  common  and  endowed  it  with  new 
significance  and  worth.  He  has  shown  how  ideals  are 
capable  of  practical  application,  and  how  common  life  may 
be  lifted  to  the  plane  of  ideality. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   MESSIANIC   SALVATION 

The  salvation  which  Jesus  offers  to  men  may  be  defined 
as  perfect  blessedness  both  here  and  hereafter.  It  is  a 
fellowship  with  God  which  guarantees  security  and  peace 
in  this  Avorld,  and  in  the  world  to  come,  eternal  life  (Mk. 
X.  30).  Its  possession  enables  his  disciples  to  endure  per- 
secutions and  sufferings  with  patience  and  courage  (Lk.  x. 
19;  xii.  4).  This  heavenly  good  stands  in  sharp  contrast 
with  all  mere  earthly  treasures  (Mt.  vi.  19),  which  have 
but  a  secondary  value  (Mk.  viii.  36,  37;  Lk.  xii.  15-21). 
It  consists  in  being  "  rich  towards  God  "  (et?  Oeov  TrXovrelv, 
Lk.  xii.  21),  in  having  "treasures  in  heaven"  (Mt.  vi.  20). 
These  are  but  figurative  designations  for  the  true,  eternal 
life  (Mt.  vii.  14 ;  Mk.  x.  30),  which  is  the  realization  of 
man's  proper  destiny  as  a  son  of  God. 

The.j3pnditioii&.x)n  which  this  blessedness  is  obtained  are 
variously  stated  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Repentance 
(^fierdvoLa')  is  the  primary  condition  (Mk.  i.  15 ;  vi.  12 ; 
Mt.  xi.  21 ;  Lk.  xxiv.  47).  This  is  a  change  of  mind  or 
disposition,  the  renunciation  of  the  sinful  life,  and  implies 
as  its  positive  aspect  a  turning  to  God  (^arpe^ecrOai^  iin- 
(TTp€(^ea6ai^  Mt.  xiii.  15;  xviii.  3).  Closel}^  related  to 
conversion  is  faith — the  humble  and  trustful  acceptance 
of  the  divine  mercy.  This  faith  is  said  to  have  as  its 
object  the  gospel-message  which  assures  men  of  the  divine 
favor  (Mk.  i.  15),  or,  even  more  characteristically,  Christ 
himself  (Mk.  ix.  42 ;  Mt.  xviii.  6).  And  in  several  pas- 
sages where  the  expression  "  to  believe  on  Christ "  is  not 
used,  the  idea  conveyed  by  that  phrase  is  clearly  involved, 
as  in  confessing  him  before  men  (Mt.  x.  32),  or  in  coming 
to  him,  and  taking  his  yoke  (Mt.  xi.  28-30).     The  signifi- 

119 


120  THE    SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

cance  of  faith  is  strikingly  pictured  in  the  scene  in  Simon's 
house,  where  the  sinful  woman  anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus. 
Her  penitence  and  trust  secured  her  full  forgiveness,  from 
which  flowed  deep  and  grateful  love.  "  Thy  faith  hath 
saved  thee,"  said  Jesus;  "go  in  peace"  (Lk.  vii.  50). 
Here  the  order  of  thought  is ;  penitence  and  faith  (which 
are  quite  inseparable),  the  conditions  of  forgiveness  whicli, 
in  turn,  gives  rise  to  love.  The  forgiveness  which  follows 
penitent  confession  is  pictorially  described  in  the  parables 
of  the  Lost  Son  (Lk.  xv.  11  sg.)  and  of  the  Pharisee  and 
the  Publican  (Lk.  xviii.  9  sq.^. 

Salvation  is  also  represented  as  participation  in  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  To  receive  the  Kingdom  is  to  enter 
the  life  of  obedient  sonship.  This  one  must  do  as  a  little 
child  (Mk.  X.  15)  ;  that  is,  in  humility  and  trust  in  the 
divine  grace.  The  Kingdom  is  described  as  an  objective 
divine  benefit  which  men  may  receive  upon  fulfilling  the 
conditions.  It  is  like  a  treasure  (Mt.  xiii.  44),  like  a  costly 
pearl  (xiii.  46),  like  a  royal  feast  (xxii.  2  sq.^.  Again, 
salvation  is  realized  in  becoming  like  God,  in  the  life  of 
love  which  is  the  life  of  increasing  perfection  (Mt.  v. 
45,  48).  All  these  representations  are  essentially  the 
same  in  meaning.  The  ground  of  salvation  is  the  unde- 
served favor  of  the  all-loving  Father ;  it  is  realized  in  the 
individual  only  by  a  corresponding  acceptance  of  the  prof- 
fered good. 

Jesus  also  speaks  of  a  divine  calling  and  choice  of  men 
to  particijDation  in  his  saving  benefits.  He  came  to  call 
sinners  to  repentance  (Mk.  ii.  17).  He  represents  the 
divine  offer  of  grace  under  the  figure  of  a  feast  to  which 
men  are  invited  (Lk.  xiv.  16-24;  Mt.  xxii.  1-16).  But 
many  of  those  who  are  bidden  are  indifferent  to  the  invita- 
tion, or  neglectful  of  the  conditions  of  participating  in  the 
heavenly  bounty.  Hence,  Jesus  explains  that  "  many  are 
called,  but  few  chosen"  (Mt.  xxii.  14).  Those  who  were 
not  chosen  were  those  who  "  made  light "  of  the  king's 
invitation;  the  chosen  were  those  who  thankfully  com- 
plied with  the  conditions.  The  election  is  not  conceived 
of  as  arbitrary,  but  as  prescribing  the  conditions  on  which 


THE   MESSIANIC    SALVATION  121 

salvation  is  offered.  A  similar  remark  applies  to  the  repre- 
sentation in  Mark  (iv.  10-12)  and  Luke  (viii.  9,  10 ;  cf. 
Mt.  xiii.  10-16)  that  his  instruction  to  the  multitude  is 
given  in  parables  "in  order  that  (im;  Mt.  oVi,  because') 
seeing  they  may  see  and  not  perceive,  and  hearing  they 
may  hear  and  not  understand ;  lest  haply  they  should  turn 
again  (eTnarpeylrwo-Lv)^  and  it  should  be  forgiven  them" 
(Mk.  iv.  12).  The  passage  is  a  free  rendering  of  Is.  vi. 
9,  10,  which  is  a  picture  of  the  increased  obduracy  pro- 
duced by  the  presentation  of  truth  to  those  who  have  no 
mind  to  receive  it.  It  must  be  understood  in  the  light  of 
the  principle  :  "  Whosoever  hath  "  (in  the  sense  of  receiv- 
ing and  using),  "  to  him  shall  be  given,  and  he  shall  have 
abundance ;  but  whosoever  hath  not "  (in  the  sense  of 
neglecting  to  use),  "from  him  shall  be  taken  away  even 
that  which  he  hath"  (Mk.  iv.  25;  Mt.  xiii.  12;  Lk.  viii. 
18).  Judicial  blindness  is  the  penalty  of  not  following 
the  light  which  one  has.  He  who,  in  this  sense,  "hath 
not,"  shall  lose  what  he  outwardly  possesses.  Truth  can 
but  blind  the  mind  that  refuses  and  despises  it.  That 
Jesus  did  not  mean  to  say  that  his  parables  were  directly 
intended  to  blind  the  minds  of  men  to  spiritual  truth  is 
evident,  both  from  their  nature  and  effect  and  from  the 
sayings  which,  for  example,  follow :  "  Is  the  light  brought 
to  be  put  under  the  bushel,  or  under  the  bed,  and  not  to 
be  put  on  the  stand?"  (Mk.  iv.  21  sq.). 

The  means  whereby  Jesus  accomplishes  his  salvation  for 
men  are  also  variously  expressed.  He  represented  his 
teaching  as  possessing  a  saving  value.  "  Learn  of  me,"  he 
said,  "and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls"  (Mt.  xi.  29). 
A  part  of  his  Messianic  work  is  to  preach  good  tidings  to 
the  poor  (Mt.  xi.  5)  and  to  expound  the  "mysteries  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God"  to  those  who  were  fitted  to  receive 
them  (Mt.  xiii.  11).  His  preaching  excelled  that  of  Jonah, 
and  his  wisdom  that  of  Solomon  (Mt.  xii.  41,  42).  The 
saving  significance  of  his  teaching  is  especially  enforced  in 
the  parable  of  the  Sower  (Mk.  iv.  3  sq.).  His  miracles, 
too,  were  a  part  of  his  benevolent  saving  activity.  He 
steadfastly  refused  to  perform  them  for  the  mere  satisfac- 


122  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

tion  of  curiosity  or  to  gratify  the  popular  greed  for  marvels 
(Mt.  iv.  3  sq.}.  Where  there  was  no  corresponding 
receptivity  for  his  spiritual  truth  he  could  not,  consistently 
with  his  divine  vocation,  do  his  mighty  works  (Mk.  vi.  5 ; 
Mt.  xiii.  58).  The  teaching  of  his  heavenly  truth  was  the 
one  great  "  sign "  —  greater  than  Jonah's  preaching  — 
which  he  would  give  (Lk.  xi.  29,  30).  To  this  all  other 
signs  were  secondary  since  they  were  intended  to  illustrate 
and  enforce  the  wisdom  and  grace  of  his  words  (Mt.  xi. 
20-24). 

But  the  saving  power  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  is 
grounded  in  what  he  is.  Hence  we  find  strong  emphasis 
laid  upon  the  importance  of  right  relations  to  himself. 
He  is  the  personal  Mediator  of  salvation.  "  He  that 
receiveth  me,  receiveth  him  that  sent  me"  (Mt.  x.  40). 
The  attitude  of  men  towards  himself  determines  their 
relation  to  God  (Lk.  xii.  8).  This  decisive  significance  of 
Messiah's  person  is  brought  into  clear  relief  in  the  much 
debated  passage,  Mt.  xi.  25-301  (of.  Lk.  x.  21-24),  in 
which  it  is  difficult  to  deny  that  we  hear  a  "  Johannine 
tone."  Beyschlag,  who,  in  general,  considers  that  the 
apostolic  theology  unwarrantably  added  to  Jesus'  own 
teaching  in  its  doctrines  of  his  person  and  his  death,  says 
of  this  passage  :  "  In  these  and  like  words  already  emerges, 
as  Jesus'  own  idea,  the  thought  which  afterwards  ruled  the 
whole  apostolic  teaching,  that  the  attitude  of  man  to  the 
person  of  Jesus  absolutely  decides  his  relation  to  God."^ 

But  the  principal  problem  which  meets  us  in  this  part  of 
our  subject  is.  What  is  the  saving  significance  of  the  death 
of  the  Messiah?     The  idea  that  his  death  was  necessary 

1  "At  that  season  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I  thank  thee,  0  Father,  Lord 
of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou  didst  hide  these  things  from  the  wise  and 
understanding,  and  didst  reveal  them  unto  babes  :  yea,  Fatlier,  for  so  it 
was  well-pleasing  in  thy  sight.  All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  me 
of  my  Father :  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save  the  Father ;  neither 
doth  any  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
willeth  to  reveal  him.  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy 
laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of 
me  ;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart :  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your 
souls.     For  my  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden  is  light." 

2  iY.  T.  Theol.  I.  150  (Bk.  I.  ch.  vi.  §  7). 


THE  MESSIANIC    SALVATION  123 

emerges  comparatively  late  in  our  sources  and  becomes  1 
explicit  only  after  Peter's  confession  of  his  messiahship.  i 
In  the  discourse  on  fasting  he  had,  indeed,  expressed  a 
presentiment  of  being  violently  taken  away  from  his  dis- 
ciples :  "  The  days  will  come,  when  the  bridegroom  shall 
be  taken  away  (^ciirapOrf)  from  them  "  (Mk.  ii.  20 ;  Mt.  ix. 
15;  Lk.  V.  35).  But  this  was  hardly  more  than  a  vague 
intimation  of  his  approaching  fate.  It  was  only  after 
Peter  had  confessed  him  as  the  Messiah  at  Csesarea  \  (""jT^ 
Pliilippi  that  he  began  to  teach  them  that  the  Son  of  man  ■  " 
must  suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected  by  the  elders,  and 
the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  after 
three  days  rise  again  (Mk.  viii.  31 ;  Mt.  xvi.  21 ;  Lk.  ix. 
22).  He  now  declared  explicitly  that  this  path  of  suffer- 
ing was  divinely  appointed.  Peter's  protest  against  the 
Messiah's  suffering  and  dying  showed  that  he  had  only  the 
human  and  not  the  divine  idea  of  his  Master's  mission 
(Mk.  viii.  33).  Moreover,  his  disciples  must  be  prepared  to 
take  up  the  cross  of  self-denying  suffering  and  to  subordi- 
nate all  earthly  good  to  the  interests  of  the  life  of  self- 
renouncing  love  (yv.  34-38). 

Luke  has  preserved  a  saying  in  which,  for  the  first  time, 
Jesus  intimated  that  his  approaching  death  would  have  a 
powerful  effect  in  drawing  some  to  him,  and  in  repelling 
others  from  him :  "  I  came  to  cast  fire  on  the  earth,  and 
what  will  I,  if  it  is  already  kindled?  But  I  have  a  bap- 
tism to  be  baptized  with ;  and  how  am  I  straitened  till 
it  be  accomplished! "  (Lk.  xii.  49).  His  baptism  of  blood 
will  furnish  a  mighty  test  of  men's  devotion  to  him.  His 
work  will  prove  a  firebrand  which  will  kindle  both  the 
flame  of  intense  opposition  and  that  of  zealous  devotion 
(yv.  51-53). 

A  still  more  significant  saying  is  that  which  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  ambitious  request  of  James  and  John  that 
they  might  sit,  one  on  his  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  his 
left,  in  his  Kingdom  (Mk.  x.  37).  In  reply  he  asked  them 
whether  they  were  able  to  drink  his  cup  of  suffering,  and 
to  undergo  his  baptism  of  blood  (y.  39);  then  to  the 
whole  apostolic  company  he  expounded  the  principles  of 


124  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

his  Kingdom,  thus :  "  Ye  know  that  they  which  are  ac- 
counted to  rule  over  the  Gentiles  lord  it  over  them ;  and 
their  great  ones  exercise  authority  over  them.  But  it  is 
not  so  among  you ;  but  whosoever  would  become  great 
among  you,  shall  be  your  minister ;  and  whosoever  would 
be  first  among  you,  shall  be  servant  of  all.  For  verily  the 
Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  min- 
ister, and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many  "  (Mk.  x.  42- 
45;  cf.  Mt.  XX.  25-28).  The  law  of  self-denying  service 
finds  here  its  most  striking,  though  not  its  first  expression. 
The  special  importance  of  the  passage  for  our  present  pur- 
pose turns  on  the  phrase  :  "  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many." 

The  axext  passage  of  fundamental  importance  for  our 
study  contains  the  words  of  Jesus  relative  to  his  death, 
spoken  at  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper.  These 
words  are  thus  reported  by  Mark :  '^  This  is  my  body  ;  .  .  . 
this  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant  which  is  shed  for  many  " 
(xiv.  22,  24).  Paul  gives  them  thus:  "This  is  my  body 
which  is  [or,  is  broken i]  for  you;  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  me.  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood ;  this 
do,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me  "  (  1  Cor. 
xi.  24,  25).  These  two  earliest  forms  of  the  tradition 
agree  perfectly  in  ascribing  a  saving  significance  to  Christ's 
death.  They  differ  only  in  the  unessential  point  that 
Paul's  version  lays  emphasis  upon  the  memorial  signifi- 
cance of  the  bread  and  wine.  In  this  respect,  and  in  gen- 
eral, Luke's  version  (xxii.  19,  20)  closely  resembles  Paul's ; 
but,  according  to  the  more  probable  text,  his  narrative  is 
more  explicit  than  Paul's  (especially  if  KXcofjuevov  is  a  gloss) 
in  representing  the  death  of  Christ  as  designed  to  secure  a 
benefit  to  his  disciples  ;  the  body  "  is  given,"  and  the  blood 
"poured  out  on  your  behalf"  (iiirep  vfjLcov').^     Passing  by 

1  Most  critics  (so  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.,  Weiss)  omit  KXdb/xevov  on  tlie 
ground  of  preponderant  external  evidence.  Beyschlag  (Bk.  I,  ch.  vi.  §  9) 
believes  it  to  be  genuine  because  otherwise  the  sentence  is  unnaturally 
compressed,  and  because  if  it  vi^ere  a  gloss  it  would  have  been  more 
natural  for  the  copyist  to  have  written  bi.bbp.evov  from  Luke. 

2  It  should  be  pointed  out  that  Westcott  and  Hort  {per  contra.,  most 
editors)  bracket  Lk.  xxii.  19^,  20  (see  their  text,  and  for  their  reasons, 


THE   MESSIANIC    SALVATION  125 

minor  verbal  differences,  the  one  marked  peculiarity  in  the 
account  found  in  the  first  Gospel  is  that  the  blood  is  said 
to  be  "  shed  for  many  unto  remission  of  sins  "  (irepl  iroX- 
X(x)v  iic)(yvv6iJLevov  ek  a^eaiv  afxapTioiv^  Mt.  xxvi.  28). 

For  our  present  purpose  it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss 
the  question  to  Avhich  criticism  has  recently  devoted  so 
much  attention,  whether  the  accounts  of  Paul  and  Luke, 
which  represent  the  supper  as  an  institution  to  be  per- 
manently observed  in  the  Church,  are  more  or  less  original 
than  the  narratives  of  Mark  and  Matthew,  which  do  not 
contain  this  idea.  In  any  case  it  is  quite  certain  that  the 
view  of  Paul  and  Luke  is  sustained  by  the  earliest  Chris- 
tian usage  which  is  known  to  us.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  in  the  interviews  with  his  disciples  between  his  death 
and  ascension  Jesus  may  have  "  commMided  the  perpetual 
observance  of  the  holy  supper,  just  as  he  gave  the  apostles 
their  commission  to  preach  and  baptize,  and  explained  the 
mystery  of  life  and  death  (Lk.  xxiv.  25-49).  Paul  and 
Luke  would  then  combine  the  words  of  Jesus  on  two  differ- 
ent occasions,  just  as  Paul  did  in  his  discourse  in  the  Book 
of  Acts  (xxvi.  15-18)."  ^  I  will  only  add  that  it  appears  to 
me  that  the  identification  of  the  Lord's  supper  with  the 
paschal  meal  by  all  the  Synoptists  makes  it  extremely 
probable  that  for  Mark  and  Matthew,  as  well  as  for  Paul 
and  Luke,  the  supper  must  have  had  more  than  an  occa- 
sional significance.  Its  association  with  the  annual  pas- 
chal festival  would  naturally  give  it  the  character  of  a 
Clnistian  passover.  This  association  would  almost  neces- 
sarily carry  with  it  the  idea  of  the  periodic  repetition  of 
the  supper.  Of  course,  this  consideration  does  not  prove 
that  the  Synoptic  tradition  is  correct  in  placing  the  supper 
on  the  evening  following  the  14th  of  Nisan,  thus  identify- 
ing  it  in  time  with   the  passover ;  but  it  does  render  it 

Appendix  on  Select  Beadings,  pp.  63,  64),  which  they  regard  as  an  early 
interpolated  adaptation  of  Paul's  language.  Wendt  adopts  the  same 
view,  Lehre  Jesu,  p.  173.  The  grounds  for  this  omission  seem  insufficient. 
The  passage  is  wanting  in  but  one  of  the  more  important  uncials,  D,  and 
either  in  whole  or  in  part,  in  two  or  three  ancient  versions ;  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  found  in  i<  A  B  L  X  A  69  Memph.  Pesh.  Vulg.  Arm.  et  al. 
1  Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  123. 


126  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING    OF  JESUS 

probable  that  the  idea  of  the  memorial  significance  of  the 
supper  was  not  unknown  to  this  tradition.  If,  as  many 
hold,  the  Synoptists  are  wrong  in  thus  identifying  the 
supper  with  the  passover,  and  are  to  be  corrected  by  John, 
who  seems  to  place  it  a  day  earlier,  it  is  possible  to  main- 
tain with  considerable  plausibility  that  the  original  words 
of  institution  and  the  earliest  thoughts  of  the  disciples, 
contained  no  idea  of  its  permanent  observance.  In  that 
case  the  origin  of  the  testimony  of  Paul  and  Luke  that 
Jesus  established  a  perpetual  institution  would  have  to  be 
accounted  for  by  some  conjectural  explanation. 

To  these  words  of  Jesus  must  be  added,  as  bearing  upon 
our  present  subject,  the  account  of  his  agony  in  Geth- 
semane  (Mk.  xiv.  32-36),  and  his  cry  upon  the  cross: 
"  My  God,  my  God,  Avhy  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  (Mk. 
XV.  34). 

The  question  now  arises :  What  is  the  meaning  of  these 
passages?  What  significance  did  Jesus  attach  to  his 
death?  Upon  certain  points  there  is  quite  general  agree- 
ment; for  examj^le,  that  Christ  foretold  his  own  death; 
that  he  regarded  it  as  a  necessary  part  of  his  Messianic 
vocation;  that  he  attributed  to  it  a  saving  significance. 
Wendt,  for  example,  says  that  the  language  of  Jesus  as- 
cribes a  "saving  significance"  to  his  death  and  that  the 
Church  is  quite  justified  in  attributing  "beneficial  effects" 
to  this  event  in  his  Messianic  work  on  man's  behalf.^ 
Beyschlag  says :  "  Towards  the  end  of  his  life  we  have 
declarations  about  the  saving  significance  of  his  death."  ^ 
The  chief  differences  among  interpreters  relate  to  the 
sense,  or  way,  in  which  his  death  is  held  to  possess  saving 
significance.  The  question  is,  how  or  why  is  his  death  a 
part  of  his  saving  work? 

The  two  principal  expressions  whose  meaning  is  in  con- 
troversy, are:  "  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many"  (Xvrpov 
avTi  TToXXwi/),  and:  "my  blood  of  the  covenant  which  is 
shed  for  many  "  (yirep  or  irepl  ttoXXmp}.  To  the  passage 
which  speaks  of  Christ's  death  as  a  ransom,  Baur  assigns 

1  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II.  p.  235  sq.  (orig.  p.  518  sq.). 

2  JV.  T.  Theol.  I.  151  (Bk.  I.  cli.  vi.  §  8). 


THE   MESSIANIC    SALVATION  127 

this  meaning:  "Jesus  gives  liis  life  for  many,  that  is,  for 
all  who  will  appropriate  this  benefit,  hence  for  men  in 
general,  as  the  price  on  account  of  which  they  are  re- 
deemed, in  order  to  free  them  as  prisoners  from  a  bondage 
which  can  be  nothing  else  than  the  bondage  of  sin  and 
death."  But  he  held  that  this  idea  finds  no  confirmation 
elsewhere  in  the  Synoptics  except  in  Mt.  xxvi.  28,  and  that 
on  account  of  its  singularity  we  must  conclude  either  that 
Jesus  never  used  the  expression,  or  that  it  had,  as  he  used 
it,  quite  a  different  form  from  that  which  the  passage  has 
assumed  in  our  sources.^  For  this  conclusion  there  are  no 
critical  grounds;  the  passage  is  found  in  Mark  (x.  45),  the 
earliest  of  the  Synoptics,  and  its  originality  is  beyond 
suspicion. 

Ritschl  has  elaborated  the  view  that  Xvrpov  is  the  equiva- 
lent of  *15^,  a  protective  covering.  This  view  is  based 
upon  the  use  of  Xvrpov  several  times  found  in  the  Septua- 
gint  (Ex.  xxi.  30;  xxx.  12;  Num.  xxxv.  31),  etc.,  as  a 
translation  for  1^3.  On  this  view  of  the  word  the  mean- 
ing which  he  derives  from  the  passage  in  question  is  as 
follows :  "  I  am  come  to  accomplish,  instead  of  those  who 
would  strive  in  vain  to  furnish  it,  the  presentation,  through 
the  giving  up  of  my  life  to  God,  of  a  valuable  gift  as  a 
protection  against  death  for  themselves  and  for  others; 
but  I  do  it  instead  of  those  only  who  through  faith  and 
self-denying  imitation  of  my  person,  fulfil  the  condition 
under  which  alone  my  action  (in  yielding  up  my  life)  can 
afford  them  the  expected  protection."  ^  Xhe  linguistic 
grounds  of  this  interpretation  are  acutely  criticised  by 
Wendt.^  Its  principal  difficulties  are :  (1)  The  Seventy 
use  Xvrpov  to  translate  several  different  Hebrew  words; 
the  word  does  not,  therefore,  consistently  represent  *1S3, 
and  no  presumption  exists  that  Jesus  originally  used  this, 
or  a  kindred,  word.  (2)  The  phrase  avrl  ttoXXcjv  is  capable 
of  a  more  natural  interpretation  if  Xvrpov  means  "  ransom- 
price  "    than    it    is    if    it    means    "  protective    covering " 

1  mutest.  Theol.  pp.  100,  101. 

2  Bechtfertigung  unci  Versohnnng,  II.  85. 

»  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II.  228,  229  (orig.  pp.  511-513). 


128  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

(Schutzmittel).  In  the  former  case,  the  idea  is:  a  ransom 
paid  in  exchange  for  those  whose  freedom  is  bought;  in 
the  latter:  a  means  of  protection  furnished  by  Messiah 
instead  of  by  those  who  were  unable  to  furnish  it  for 
themselves.  The  former  sense  is  simpler,  more  natural, 
and  more  accordant  with  the  proper  meaning  of  Xvrpov. 

Wendt  holds  that  Xvrpov  means  a  ransom  (Losegeld), 
and,  further,  that  the  phrase  contains  the  notion  of  Christ's 
purchasing,  by  giving  his  life,  the  liberation  of  persons 
from  servitude  to  suffering  and  death.  He  finds  its  near- 
est analogy  and  best  explanation  in  the  passage  beginning : 
"  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden, 
and  I  will  give  you  rest"  (Mt.  xi.  28).  His  view  of  its 
meaning  is  thus  expressed :  "  Through  the  voluntary  God- 
consecrated  giving  up  of  his  life  in  sufferings  and  death 
he  frees  many,  namely,  those  who  will  learn  of  him,  from 
their  bondage  to  suffering  and  death ;  he  teaches  them  by 
his  example  to  rise  inwardly,  through  pious  humility  and 
assurance  of  salvation,  above  death,  and  so  to  transform 
death  for  themselves  from  a  fearful  tyrant  into  a  means 
of  salvation."  ^  In  this  view  the  death  of  the  Messiah  is 
regarded  as  a  means  of  purchasing  men's  freedom  from 
suffering  and  death  in  the  sense  that  it  is  an  example  of 
supreme  devotion  to  God,  from  the  contemplation  of  which 
they  may  be  led  to  "look  upon  earthly  sufferings  and 
earthly  death  from  the  standpoint  of  God  and  of  the  heav- 
enly life."  Wendt  adds  that  his  view  comes  practically 
to  the  same  result  as  Ritschl's,  but  by  a  somewhat  different 
interpretation  of  the  terms. 

Beyschlag's  opinion  is  that  the  servitude  from  which 
Christ  ransoms  men  is,  primarily,  servitude  to  sin.  But 
how  does  Christ  by  his  death  deliver  men  from  the  bond- 
age of  sin?  This  author  thinks  that  in  speaking  of  re- 
deeming men  from  sin,  Christ  is  directly  thinking  of  the 
ambitious  request  of  James  and  John,  which  showed  that 
his  most  devoted  followers  were  still  worldly  and  selfish, 
and  that  in  the  phrase  under  consideration  "  he  may  have 
expressed  the  hope  that  these  ties  (of  selfish  desire)  would 
1  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II.  231  (orig.  p.  515). 


THE   MESSIANIC    SALVATION  129 

at  length  be  broken  by  his  approaching  death."  ^  I  under- 
stand this  interpretation  to  mean  that  his  death  would 
put  an  end  to  such  worldly  ambitions  as  those  of  James 
and  John,  and,  in  that  sense,  deliver  them  from  their 
sinfulness.  It  would  "  break  the  cords  which  still  bound 
his  disciples  to  the  world,  so  that  by  means  of  it,"  to  use 
Paul's  language,  "  the  world  would  be  crucified  unto  them, 
and  they  unto  the  world." 

I  will  also  briefly  illustrate  the  sense  in  which  some 
recent  writers  hold  that  Jesus  ascribed  a  "saving  signifi- 
cance "  to  his  death  in  the  utterances  at  the  supper. 
Wendt  thinks  that  in  speaking  of  the  "  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant "  he  designated  his  death  (after  the  analogy  of  the 
covenant-sacrifice,  Ex.  xxiv.)  as  "a  valuable  and  well- 
pleasing  offering  or  service  to  God,"  an  example  of  obedi- 
ence exhibiting  "  the  conduct  required  by  God  of  the 
members  of  his  Kingdom."  His  death  was  thus  a  pledge 
of  God's  promises  to  the  disciples,  a  guaranty  of  their  sal- 
vation. It  is  thus  "  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  only  in  the 
sense  that  it  is  the  culminating  proof  that  he  will  com- 
pletely establish  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  secure  to  his 
own  its  saving  benefits.^  The  apostles  "  remodelled  "  this 
idea,  by  expanding  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  for  you  " 
(the  disciples)  into  the  doctrine  that  his  death  had  a 
special  significance  for  the  forgiveness  of  the  sins  of  men 
in  general.  Especially  did  Paul  make  this  idea  "  the  foun- 
dation of  his  whole  gospel."  This  interpretation  Wendt 
holds  to  be  justified  in  so  far  as  the  pledge  of  salvation 
given  to  the  disciples  in  his  death  is  a  guaranty  of  God's 
forgiving  grace  which,  by  inference,  may  be  extended  to 
all  men  as  a  ground  of  hope  in  his  mercy.  "But,"  he 
adds,  "  from  this  application,  made  by  the  Christian  Church, 
of  the  thought  of  Jesus,  we  must  now,  however,  in  our 
purely  historical  treatment  of  the  teaching,  strictly  dis- 
tinguish the  contents  of  the  thought  expressed  by  Jesus 
himself.  Jesus  himself  has  neither  in  the  words  at  the 
last  supper  nor  elsewhere  expressed  this  special  relation 

1  N.  T.  Theol.  I.  153  (Bk.  I.  ch.  vi.  §  8). 

2  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II.  237-239  (orig.  pp.  519,  520). 


130  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

of  the  saving  significance  of  his  death  to  the  bestowment 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  ^ 

Beyschlag  regards  Wendt's  denial  that  the  Sinaitic  cove- 
nant-offering had  any  relation  to  the  sin  of  the  people  as 
contrary  to  "the  whole  Biblical  view  and  to  all  Biblical 
theology/'  Analogy,  therefore,  does  not,  in  his  view, 
favor  the  further  denial  by  Wendt  that  the  thought  which 
Jesus  expressed  respecting  his  death  at  the  supper  had  any 
reference  to  the  removal  of  sins  —  a  view  which  stands  in 
sharp  contradiction  to  the  explanation  which  was  already 
given  in  the  apostolic  time  (Mt.  xxvi.  28)  and  which  all 
Christendom  has  ever  since  given  to  the  words  "  for  you." 
"What  better,"  asks  Beyschlag,  "has  Wendt  to  put  in 
the  place  of  this  interpretation?"  He  himself  finds  in 
the  words  a  twofold  allusion,  first,  to  the  passover,  in  the 
words:  "this  is  my  body,"  and,  second,  to  the  covenant 
at  Sinai  in  the  words  :  "  this  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant." 
Both  references  suggest  the  ideas  of  forgiveness  and  recon- 
ciliation ;  but  how  ?  not  by  securing  or  conditioning,  but 
by  attesting  and  ratifying,  the  divine  grace.  The  "new 
covenant "  was  to  be  (Jer.  xxxi.  31-34)  not  only  a  cove- 
nant of  forgiveness  but  of  regeneration.  Christ's  death 
assures,  primarily,  an  inward  transformation,  the  produc- 
tion of  a  new  life,  and,  secondarily,  and  in  connection 
with  this,  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  His  death  objectively 
abolishes,  outweighs,  and  removes  sin ;  it  effaces  it  in  the 
eyes  of  God,  not  by  penal  substitution,  but  dynamically; 
it  also  cancels  sin  subjectively  by  perfectly  assuring  the 
sinner  of  forgiveness.  When,  now,  we  inquire  from  Bey- 
schlag how  and  why  the  death  of  Christ  abolishes  sin, 
the  answer  is,  in  part,  the  same  as  that  given  by  Wendt ; 
namely,  it  serves  to  burst  the  bonds  of  worldliness  which 
still  held  his  own  disciples  captive,  and,  further,  it  avails 
to  assure  forgiveness  to  all  who  appropriate  his  life  by 
receiving  him  into  their  hearts.  His  death  consummates 
his  obedience  to  God,  and  thus  completes  the  guaranty 
which  he  gives  that  the  benefits  of  the  Kingdom  will  be 
granted  to  those  who  desire  to  live  the  Christ-like  life.^ 

1  Op.  cit.  II.  241  (orig.  p.  522). 

2  i\r.   T.   Theol.  I.  154-159  (Bk.  I.  ch.  vi.  §§  9,  10). 


THE   MESSIANIC    SALVATION  131 

This  exposition  differs  from  Wendt's  in  form  rather  than 
in  jDrinciple.  Both  make  Christ's  references  to  his  death 
primarily  a  comforting  assurance,  addressed  to  the  dis- 
ciples who  were  present,  that  their  sins  Avere  forgiven. 
Beyschlag  thinks  that  they  contain  a  similar  assurance  for 
others  who  may  enter  the  Christian  life ;  Wendt  denies 
this,  but  thinks  that  their  meaning  was  afterwards  thus 
expanded  by  a  justifiable  inference.  Both  deny  that  the 
words  have  Siuy  reference  to  the  death  of  Christ  as  a 
ground  of  forgiveness,  or  as,  in  any  way,  conditioning  the 
method  of  its  bestowment.  Both  admit  that  the  apostolic 
Church,  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  theology  since,  has  main- 
tained a  direct  relation  between  Christ's  death  and  the 
bestowment  of  forgiveness,  but  both  regard  this  idea  as 
an  afterthought.  This  position  is  rendered  more  plausi- 
ble by  descriptions  of  ecclesiastical  theology  which  ma}^, 
indeed,  correspond  to  the  most  extreme  forms  which  the 
doctrine  of  atonement  has  assumed,  but  which  few  ortho- 
dox scholars  to-day  would  hold  to  be  either  apostolic  or 
true.  Wendt,  for  example,  refers  to  the  Church  doctrine 
as  teaching  that  Christ's  death  was  necessary,  "in  order 
that  God's  gracious  will  might  continue  in  operation " 
(Bestand  bekommen  konne),i  and  Beyschlag  protests 
against  the  traditional  view  that  "heaven  was  first  opened 
by  the  abstract  fact  of  Christ's  death,  and  forgiveness 
rendered  possible,  and  the  angry  God  transformed  into 
a  heavenly  Father."  ^ 

Respecting  this  subject  I  would  make  the  following  sug- 
gestions : 

(1)  It  is  not  strange  that  the  idea  of  the  necessity  of 
Christ's  death  emerges  comparatively  late  in  his  ministry. 
His  death  was  a  part  of  his  Messianic  vocation.  With  re- 
spect to  his  messiahship  he  maintained  a  cautious  reserve. 
It  is  natural  that  he  should  do  so  with  reference  to  this 
most  mysterious  event  of  all,  the  import  of  which  could 
not  be  understood  beforehand.  It  may  be  that  Jesus  did 
not  at  first  expect  the  tragic  fate.     His  conviction  of  its 

1  TemUng  of  Jesus,  II.  246  (orig.  p.  526). 

2  iV.  T.  Theol.  I.  159  (Bk.  I.  ch.  vi.  §  10). 


132  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING    OF    JESUS 

inevitableness  may  have  grown  with  the  increase  of  hos- 
tility to  him.  But,  in  any  case,  it  is  not  likely  that  Jesus 
would  speak  frequently  or  explicitly  of  the  subject  in 
advance. 

(2)  It  is  evident  that  from  the  time  of  Peter's  confession 
he  did  not  regard  the  giving  of  his  life  as  enforced  merely, 
but  as  voluntary.  He  is  to  "give  his  life."  He  cannot 
complete  his  saving  work  without  dying.  What  was  the 
nature,  what  the  ground  of  this  necessity  ? 

(3)  It  must  be  admitted  that  our  sources  give  us  no 
direct  and  explicit  answer.  Two  considerations  must 
guide  us  in  seeking  a  reply:  first,  the  natural  force  and 
suggestions  of  such  sayings  as  that  about  giving  his  life  as 
a  ransom  for  many  and  that  about  his  blood  as  the  blood 
of  the  covenant ;  and,  second,  the  interpretation  given  to 
his  death  by  the  apostolic  Church. 

(4)  Matthew,  as  we  have  seen,  sets  the  death  of  Christ 
in  relation  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  But  do  not  the 
phrases  avrl  ttoWcov,  irepl  ttoWcov,  and  vTrep  vfjLcov  suggest 
the  same  meaning  ?  What  could  any  person  familiar  with 
the  Old  Testament  understand  by  a  covenant  in  Christ's 
blood,  or  by  the  giving  up  of  his  life  as  a  ransom,  exce]3t  a 
sacrificial  death  ?  If  his  "  blood  shed  for  many  "  does  not 
mean  substantially  the  same  as  "shed  for  the  remission  of 
sins,"  we  must  say  that  the  misunderstanding  of  the  early 
Church  was  quite  inevitable,  for  certainly  no  person  of  the 
time  could  have  understood  the  language  otherwise.^ 

(5)  It  is  now  generally  agreed  that  the  apostolic  the- 
ology regards  Christ's  death  as  directly  related  to  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  His  death  is  a  testimony  to  the  hein- 
ousness  of  sin  in  God's  sight  and  to  God's  holy  displeasure 
against  it.  It  thus  fulfils  a  condition  of  sin's  forgiveness, 
namely,  the  assertion  of  its  desert  of  penalty  and  the  vin- 
dication of  the  divine  righteousness  in  its  condemnation. 
Was  this  a  product  of  the  "  reminiscent  phantasies  "  of  his 
disciples,  or  had  it  a  place  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  himself  ? 

(6)  Luke  records  that  after  the  resurrection  Jesus  said 
to  his  disciples :    "  O  foolish  men,  and  slow  of  heart  to 

1  Cf.  Bruce,  Kingdom  of  God,  pp.  246-249. 


THE   MESSIANIC    SALVATION  133 

believe  in  all  that  the  prophets  have  spoken  !  Behoved  it 
not  the  Christ  to  suffer  these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his 
glory?  And  beginning  from  Moses,  and  from  all  the 
prophets,  he  interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  scriptures  the 
things  concerning  himself"  (xxiv.  25-27).  And,  again 
later,  he  said  to  them  :  "  These  are  my  words  which  I 
spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  how  that  all 
things  must  needs  be  fulfilled,  which  are  v/ritten  in  the 
law  of  Moses,  and  the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  concerning 
me.  Then  opened  he  their  mind  that  they  might  under- 
stand the  scriptures ;  and  he  said  unto  them.  Thus  it  is 
written,  that  the  Christ  should  suffer,  and  rise  again  from 
the  dead  the  third  day ;  and  that  repentance  and  remission 
of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  unto  all  the  nations, 
beginning  from  Jerusalem"  (Lk.  xxiv.  44-47).  What 
Jesus  specifically  said  in  these  explanations  of  the  import 
of  his  death,  we  do  not  know.  But  is  it  credible  that  the 
first  disciples,  after  hearing  his  instruction  on  the  subject, 
should  proceed  to  build  up  a  subjective  theory  of  his  death 
which  had  no  warrant  in  his  own  teaching?  Which  per- 
sons are  most  likely  to  have  correctly  apprehended  the 
significance  which  Jesus  attached  to  his  death,  men  like 
John  and  Peter  and,  I  may  add,  Paul  (who  passed  two 
weeks  with  Peter  when  this  subject  was  uppermost  in  his 
thoughts.  Gal.  i.  18),  or  an  equal  number  of  scholars  in 
our  time,  however  discerning  and  candid,  who  undertake 
to  reconstruct  the  thoughts  of  Jesus,  and  to  disentangle 
them  from  the  supposed  subjective  reflections  of  his  dis- 
ciples ?  Where  is  the  subjectivity  likely  to  be  greatest  — 
in  the  interpretations  of  the  eye  and  ear  witness  or  in  the 
reconstructions  of  the  moderns  ?  Many  adopt  the  former 
supposition ;  I  cannot  help  preferring  the  latter. 

(7)  The  reported  words  of  Jesus  in  the  Synoptists  are 
not,  indeed,  very  explicit  in  their  bearing  upon  what  theol- 
ogy calls  the  problem  of  atonement,  and  should  not  be 
pressed  into  the  service  of  specific  theories.  The  phrase 
BovvaL  rrjv  '\lrv')(^r]v  avrov  'Xvrpov  avrl  ttoWmv  contains  the 
idea  that  by  his  death  Jesus  brought  back  many  captives 
from  sin  unto  God.    But  the  language  is  figurative,  and  we 


134  THE    SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

are  not  told  how  his  death  contributed  to  secure  this  deliv- 
erance. If  there  be  allusions  in  the  words  spoken  at  the 
supper  both  to  the  paschal  feast  and  to  the  ratification  of 
the  covenant  at  Sinai,  both  would  suggest  the  saving  im- 
port of  Christ's  death,  but  neither  would  show  how  it 
availed  for  men's  salvation.  The  agony  of  Gethsemane 
emphasizes  the  necessity,  and  illustrates  the  severity,  of  our 
Lord's  suffering,  but  does  not  disclose  to  us  its  function 
in  the  divine  plan  for  the  salvation  of  men.  The  exclama- 
tion on  the  cross :  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  for- 
saken me?"  (Mt.  XV.  34),  must  not  be  didactically  pressed 
into  an  assertion  that  in  his  death  God  withdrew  from 
Christ  his  favor  and  fellowship.  The  Psalm  from  wliich 
it  is  quoted  (xxii.  1)  suggests  rather  the  idea  of  abandon- 
ment to  suffering  than  that  of  abandonment  to  desertion 
by  God.  In  this  view,  the  exclamation  would  be  an  intense 
expression  in  bitter  anguish  of  the  idea  contained  in  the 
words :  "  If  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me." 

For  our  present  purpose  we  must  rest  the  question  here. 
The  apostolic  Church  attributed  to  these  words  and  events, 
and  to  such  others  as  were  then  known,  a  sacrificial,  aton- 
.ing  significance  (in  v/hat  sense  we  shall  see).  In  this  it 
has  been  followed  by  the  prevailing  theology  of  the  Church 
of  subsequent  ages.  It  does  not  fall  within  the  purpose  of 
the  present  work  to  defend  the  theology  of  the  Church. 
I  have  simply  indicated  the  bearings  of  the  question  and 
what  the  historical  presumption  in  the  case  seems  to  me  to 
be.  It  can  hardly  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  burden  of 
proof  rests  upon  him  who  holds  that  in  its  apprehension 
of  this  subject  the  Church  has  from  the  very  first  gone 
astray. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE   CHRISTIAN  BROTHERHOOD 

We  have  seen  that  the  Kmgdom  of  God  is  a  spiritual 
commonwealth,  embracing  all  who  adopt  certain  principles 
and  motives  of  life.  The  bond  which  unites  its  members 
is  likeness  in  character,  kinship  of  spirit.  Very  early  in 
his  ministry,  however,  we  observe  indications  that  Jesus 
intended  to  found  a  society,  based  upon  the  principle  of 
the  Kingdom,  in  which  the  members  should  be  held  to- 
gether by  outward  and  visible  ties  of  fellowship.  This 
society  is  the  Church  or  assembly  {eKfcXrjala)  of  his  dis- 
ciples. It  is  evident  that  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  is  tlie 
more  prominent  and  the  more  fundamental  one  in  the 
mind  of  Jesus ;  ^  but  it  is  also  evident  that  he  regarded 
some  outward  form  of  association  and  organization  as 
essential  to  the  most  effective  promotion  of  the  Kingdom. 
The  common  spiritual  life  which  constitutes  men  members 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God  needs  to  be  fostered  by  reciprocal 
fellowship  and  expressed  in  organized  effort. 

The  first  indication  of  Jesus'  intention  to  found  such  a 
society  may  be  discerned  in  the  way  in  which  he  called 
upon  men  to  follow  him,  to  leave  their  occupations  even, 
in  order  to  form  a  company  who  should  attend  him  in  his 
journeys  and  labors.  Especially  did  this  purpose  become 
clear  when  he  set  apart  twelve  men  as  his  permanent 
associates  and  helpers,  and  named  them  his  apostles  or 
messengers  (Mk.  iii.  13-19 ;  Lk.  vi.  12-16).  He  warned 
those  who  proposed  to  enter  this  company  that  their  deter- 
mination to  do  so  would  involve  trial  and  hardship,  and 
required  them  to  make  a  decisive  choice  between  disciple- 

1  The  term  "Kmgdom"  occurs  one  hundred  and  twelve  times  in  the 
gospels  ;  the  word  "  Church"  only  twice. 

135 


136  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

ship  to  him  and  all  rival  interests  (Mt.  viii.  19-22 ;  Lk. 
xii.  25-27). 

The  duties  of  the  Twelve  were  not  sharply  defined,  but 
from  the  announcement  made  to  Andrew  and  Peter  that 
they  were  to  become  "  fishers  of  men "  (Mk.  i.  17),  and 
from  Jesus'  charge  when  he  sent  them  all  out  on  a  tour 
of  preaching  and  healing  (Mk.  vi.  7-13),  we  infer  that 
they  had  a  certain  official  relation  to  him  and  that  it  was 
his  intention  to  make  them  his  chief  agents  in  the  establish- 
ing of  his  Church.  Their  office,  however,  was  character- 
ized by  special  opportunity  and  service,  rather  than  by 
exceptional  prerogative  or  power.  Two  of  them  were 
distinctly  told,  when  they  sought  positions  of  eminence, 
that  no  greatness  was  to  be  sought  in  his  Kingdom  except 
greatness  by  and  for  service  (Mk.  x.  42-44).  Jesus 
recognized  no  superiority  of  outward  rank  among  his  dis- 
ciples. They  were  all  on  a  footing  of  fraternal  equality 
and  were  instructed  not  to  single  out  one  or  another  of 
their  number  and  designate  him  by  titles  of  superior  emi- 
nence (Mt.  xxiii.  8-10).  The  bestowment  of  divine 
grace  upon  them  was  not  conditioned  upon  any  special 
functions  which  certain  official  superiors  must  perform 
on  behalf  of  the  others,  or  upon  any  particular  form  of 
organization ;  but  where  even  two  or  three  met  together 
in  his  name,  there  he  promised  to  be  in  the  midst  of  them 
(Mt.  xviii.  20). 

It  is  maintained  by  some  that  the  idea  of  establishing  a 
society  of  his  own,  distinct  from  the  Jewish  national  Church, 
was  foreign  to  Jesus'  original  plan,  and  was  only  adopted 
after  all  hope  of  winning  the  Jewish  nation  to  belief  in  his 
messiahship  had  to  be  abandoned.  Weiss,  for  example, 
says :  "  It  was  among  the  people  that  he  had  desired  to 
establish  the  Kingdom  of  God,  which  was  nothing  different 
from  the  consummation  of  the  theocracy  always  looked 
forward  to  by  Israel.  It  had  never  occurred  to  Jesus  to 
bind  his  followers  into  an  exclusive  community  separated 
from  the  great  congregation.  .  .  .  The  greatest  sorrow 
of  his  life  was  caused  by  the  thought  of  establishing  such 
a  distinct  Church  in  the  midst  of  the  great  congregation  of 


THE   CHRISTIAN  BROTHERHOOD  137 

Israel."^  It  is  true  that  the  word  Ecdesia  appears  only 
in  the  later  teaching  of  Jesus.  It  is  also  true  that  Jesus 
would  gladly  have  won  the  nation  to  belief  in  himself. 
But  that  it  was  his  original  and  long-cherished  idea  to 
make  the  Jewish  theocracy  the  social  form  in  which  his 
religion  should  find  visible  expression,  is  an  opinion  which 
lacks  proof  and  which  is,  in  my  judgment,  intrinsically 
improbable.  It  is  refuted  not  so  much  by  any  passage 
as  by  the  whole  genius  of  Jesus'  mission  and  teaching. 
His  work  could  not  be  run  into  the  moulds  of  Judaism. 
We  detect  in  it  from  the  very  beginning  a  note  of  greater 
breadth  and  universality.  The  call  of  the  publican,  Levi 
or  Matthew  (Mk.  ii.  14  sq.)^  into  the  company  of  disciples, 
and  his  subsequent  confirmation  as  an  apostle  (Mk.  iii. 
18),  is  an  indication  that  Jesus  proposed  to  allow  neither 
national  nor  social  distinctions  to  condition  membership  in 
the  community  which  he  would  found.  It  is  quite  unwar-/ 
ranted  to  assume  —  as  criticism  so  often  does  —  that  Jesus 
had  no  clear  ideas  concerning  his  own  person  and  work 
until  the  time  when  he  first  explicitly  uttered  them,  or 
that  up  to  the  moment  of  such  utterance,  his  ideas  were 
the  opposite  of  what  he  then  expressed.  The  suppositions 
which  are  often  put  forward  by  critics  respecting  the  vac- 
illation, disappointment,  and  sudden  transitions  in  Jesus' 
ideas  of  his  messiahship,  his  Kingdom,  his  death,  and  the 
effect  of  his  work  in  the  world,  would  be  far-fetched  and 
unnatural  in  application  to  any  person  of  ordinary  intelli- 
gence who  had  a  fairly  definite  idea  of  his  own  powers 
and  life-work. 

The  first  passage  in  which  the  word  "  Church  "  {eKKXrj- 
ata)  appears  is  Mt.  xvi.  18 :  "  And  I  also  say  unto  thee, 
that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church  ;  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against 
it."  These  words  were  spoken  directly  after  Peter  had 
made  his  great  confession  at  Csesarea  Philippi.  Both  the 
time  and  the  place  are  suggestive.  The  ministry  of  Jesus 
was  now  well  advanced.  His  rejection  by  the  nation  was 
decisive.  In  the  face  of  it,  however,  Peter,  voicing  the  con- 
1  Life  of  Christ,  III.  60  (Bk.  V.  ch.  vi.). 


138    '  THE   SYKOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

viction  of  his  associates,  had  boldly  asserted  his  messiah- 
ship.  It  was  at  this  juncture  that  Jesus  withdrew  for  a  time 
from  the  scene  of  his  ordinary  labors  to  this  distant  north- 
ern city.  Here,  for  the  first  time,  he  spoke  freely  of  his 
approacliing  death,  and  of  the  sure  triumph  of  his  cause. 
On  a  cliff  at  Csesarea  stood  the  Roman  temple  which  Herod 
the  Great  had  built  in  honor  of  Augustus.  The  obtrusive 
worship  of  C^sar  in  a  temple  built  by  a  Jewish  prince  can 
hardly  have  failed  to  shock  the  little  company  as  they 
entered  the  city.  It  is  remarkable  that  their  declaration 
of  his  sonship  to  God  and  his  own  assurances  of  triumph 
should  have  been  spoken  in  the  presence  of  a  shrine  where 
divine  honors  were  offered  to  the  head  of  the  Roman 
empire.^ 

Criticism  has,  indeed,  called  in  question  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  passage.  In  his  reconstruction  of  the  Logia, 
Wendt  gives  this  as  the  probably  original  form  of  the 
passage:  "Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-Jonah;  thou  art 
Peter,  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against 
thee."  2  Weiss  is  of  the  opinion  that  verse  19,  which 
speaks  of  Jesus  giving  to  Peter  the  keys  of   the   King- 

1  "These  were  the  two  religions  which  were  shortly  to  contest  the 
world  —  the  marble  temple  covering  the  bust  of  an  emperor,  the  group 
of  exiles  round  the  leader,  whom  his  own  people  had  rejected.  ...  He 
in  the  temple  v/as  only  an  official,  the  temporary  symbol  of  a  great  power, 
to-day's  dispenser  of  its  largess,  who  to-morrow  would  be  succeeded  by 
another.  But  the  little  band  of  fugitives  outside  clung  to  their  Leader  for 
his  own  eternal  sake.  He  was  the  Kingdom,  he  was  the  religion  ;  every- 
thing lay  forever  in  his  character  and  his  love."  George  Adam  Smith, 
The  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land  (1895),  p.  478. 

2  Lehre  Jesu,  p.  180.  This  condensation  of  the  passage  is  based  upon 
the  fact  that  it  is  found  in  substantially  this  form  in  the  Commentary  of 
Ephraem  Syrus  on  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  (see  the  translation  of  the 
Diatessaron  by  J.  Hamlyn  Hill  (1891),  p.  356).  But  this  conclusion  is 
very  precarious  in  view  of  the  facts  that  the  whole  passage  stands  in  the 
versions  of  the  Diatessaron,  which  have  thus  far  been  discovered  (see 
op.  cit.,  p.  136),  that  it  is  found  entire  in  the  Curetonian  Syriac,  which 
is  believed  closely  to  resemble  the  Syriac  text  used  by  Tatian,  and  that 
it  was  the  habit  of  Ephraem  to  abbreviate  passages.  Dr.  Briggs  thinks 
that  Luke  would  not  have  omitted  this  passage  if  it  had  been  in  the  Logia, 
and  that  "Matthew  must  have  derived  it  from  a  traditional  source."  He 
thinks  it  represents  a  form  of  evangelic  tradition  later  than  the  early 
chapters  of  Acts.     See  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  189. 


THE   CHRISTIAN   BROTHERHOOD  139 

dom  and  of  his  binding  and  loosing,  was  taken  by 
the  evangelist  from  another  connection  and  applied  to 
Peter.  1  In  Mt.  xviii.  18  the  second  part  of  this  verse  is 
found,  addressed  to  the  disciples  in  general.  The  fact 
that  these  passages  which  speak  of  "  the  Church "  are 
found  only  in  Matthew  is  certainly  a  check  to  over- 
confidence  in  dealing  with  them,  but  does  not  seem  to 
me  to  warrant  Wendt's  excision  of  them  without  more 
adequate  reasons  for  so  doing  than  he  has  given. 

Two  questions  here  claim  our  attention :  In  what  sense 
can  the  Church  be  built  upon  Peter  ?  and :  What  is  the 
meaning  of  binding  and  loosing?  In  the  first  saying 
addressed  to  Peter  there  is  in  the  Greek  a  play  on  words 
whose  force  is  lost  in  translation  :  av  el  IleT/oo?,  ical  iirl 
ravrrj  rrj  irerpa  ol/coSo/jiijcrco,  k.t.\.  (v.  18).  In  the 
Aramaic,  which  Jesus  doubtless  spoke,  both  IleTpo?  and 
irerpa  would  be  represented  by  the  same  w^ord  (^^^5). 
It  is  quite  certain,  and  is  now  generally  admitted,  that 
the  words  "  this  rock  "  refer,  not  to  Christ,  nor  to  Peter's 
confession  or  faith,  but  to  Peter  himself.  It  would  be 
quite  unwarranted,  however,  to  neglect  the  context  and 
to  suppose  that  it  is  altogether  apart  from  his  character  as 
the  confessor  of  Jesus'  divine  sonship  that  Peter  is  to 
be  made  the  foundation  of  the  Church.  Not  until  this 
moment  could  Peter  have  been  called  the  rock-apostle  on 
whom  Christ  would  build  his  society;  now  for  the  first 
time  can  it  be  said  that  Peter  has  fully  become  what  his 
name  imports. 

The  connection  appears  to  me  to  make  it  perfectly  clear 
that  it  is  in  view  of  the  great  significance  of  his  confession 
that  Peter  is  now  described  as  the  foundation-rock  of  the 
Church.  The  name  "  Peter  "  had  already  been  given  him 
with  prophetic  reference  to  his  character  (Jn.  i.  42)  ;  he 
had  now  made  good  the  designation.  But  he  had  done  so 
not  by  the  aid  of  "  flesh  and  blood,"  but  by  divine  guidance 
and  enlightenment.     Moreover,  Peter  here  merely  voiced 

1  Life  of  Christ,  I.  59  (Bk.  V.  ch.  vi.).  Wendt  thinks  that  this  passage 
(Mt.  xviii.  18)  is  also  an  interpretation  by  the  evangelist.  Lehre  Jesu, 
p.  156. 


140  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

the  common  conviction  of  the  other  disciples.  All  three 
Synoptists  imply  that  they  all  professed  the  same  faith. 
Peter,  true  to  his  impetuous  nature  and  to  the  position 
which  he  had  already  acquired  as  primus  inter  pares  among 
the  apostles,  responds  promptly  to  the  questions  of  Jesus ; 
"  Who  say  ye  that  I  am  ?  "  and  in  so  doing  voices  the  con- 
viction of  the  whole  company. 

The  circumstances  and  the  language  used  do  not,  there- 
fore, favor  the  idea  that  Jesus  meant  here  to  found  an 
office  or  to  confer  upon  Peter  a  special  judicial  authority, 
much  less  to  establish  a  permanent  individual  primacy  in 
the  Church  with  a  perpetual  line  of  succession.^  There  is 
a  strong  presumption  that  Jesus  meant  Peter  to  become 
just  what  he  actually  did  become,  the  foremost  leader  and 
guide  of  the  early  Church,  the  chief  agent  in  founding  and 
fostering  the  brotherhood  of  those  who  confessed  Jesus  as 
Lord.  The  New  Testament  does  not  leave  us  without 
information  respecting  the  place  and  function  of  Peter  in 
founding  the  Church ;  the  facts  of  the  case  are  better  than 
conjectures  as  showing  what  his  Master  meant  that  Peter 
should  become  and  do.  To  a  brief  consideration  of  these 
we  now  turn. 

In  immediate  connection  with  the  narrative  under  review 
stands  another  in  which  Jesus  severely  rebukes  Peter  for 
thinking  the  thoughts  of  men  rather  than  those  of  God 
respecting  Messiah's  sufferings  and  death.  Somewhat 
later,  it  was  in  answer  to  a  question  asked  by  Peter  that 
Jesus  said  that  the  twelve  apostles  should  "  sit  upon  twelve 

1 1  find  the  following  admirable  statement  of  what  I  hold  to  be  the  true 
meaning  of  the  passage  in  Dr.  Hort's  The  Christian  Ecdesia,  p.  16  :  "  St. 
Peter  himself,  yet  not  exclusively  St.  Peter,  but  the  other  disciples  of 
whom  he  was  then  the  spokesman  and  interpreter,  and  should  hereafter 
be  the  leader,  was  the  rock  which  Christ  had  here  in  view.  It  was  no 
question  here  of  an  authority  given  to  St.  Peter ;  some  other  image  than 
that  of  the  ground  under  a  foundation  nmst  have  been  chosen  if  that  hp.d 
been  meant.  Still  less  was  it  a  question  of  an  authority  which  should  be 
transmitted  by  St.  Peter  to  others.  The  whole  was  a  matter  of  personal 
or  individual  qualifications  and  personal  or  individual  work.  The  out- 
burst of  keenly  perceptive  faith  had  now  at  last  shown  St.  Peter,  carry- 
ing with  him  the  rest,  to  have  the  prime  qualification  for  the  task  which 
his  Lord  contemplated  for  him." 


THE   CHRISTIAN   BROTHERHOOD  141 

thrones"  (Mt.  xix.  28) — thus  assigning  equal  honor  to 
all.  When  the  question  was  raised :  "  Who  is  the  greatest 
in  the  Kingdom  of  God?"  Jesus  gives  no  intimation  of 
Peter's  supremacy,  but  places  a  little  child  in  the  midst  of 
the  disciples  (Mt.  xviii.  1,  2).  Peter  was  one  of  the 
''pillars"  of  the  Palestinian  Church  (Gal.  ii.  9),  and 
appears  to  have  had  a  certain  preeminence  in  j^ersonal 
influence,  but  it  Avas  James,  not  Peter,  who  presided  at 
the  council  at  Jerusalem  and  announced  its  decision  (Acts 
XV.).  The  best  illustration  of  Peter's  special  calling  and 
position  is  given  in  his  own  words  at  the  council  just 
referred  to :  "  Brethren,  ye  know  how  a  good  while  ago 
God  made  choice  among  you,  that  by  my  mouth  the  Gen- 
tiles should  hear  the  word  of  the  gospel,  and  believe " 
(Acts  XV.  7).  The  reference  is  to  the  conversion  of  Cor- 
nelius (Acts  X.),  but  when  the  centurion  "  fell  down  at  his 
feet,  and  worshipped  him,  Peter  raised  him  up,  saying. 
Stand  up;  I  myself  also  am  a  man"  (Acts  x.  25,  26). 
Despite  this  privilege  providentially  accorded  to  Peter, 
and  despite  his  great  popular  influence,  he  neither  claimed, 
nor  did  the  other  apostles  in  any  case  recognize,  any 
special  official  authority  as  belonging  to  him.  His  fellow 
Jewish  Christians  freely  criticised  his  action  in  eating  with 
the  Gentiles  (Acts  xi.  2,  3),  and  he  met  their  censure, 
not  by  authority,  but  by  argument.  In  this  case  Peter 
was  in  the  right,  but  on  a  later  occasion  at  Antioch,  true 
to  his  impulsive  nature,  he  made  the  great  mistake  of 
withdrawing  from  fellowship  with  the  Gentile  converts  — 
an  action  for  which  Paul  "resisted  him  to  the  face,  be- 
cause he  stood  condemned"  (Gal.  ii.  11).  Peter's  position 
among  the  Twelve,  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  throws 
any  light  upon  it,  must  be  understood  to  consist  in  the 
following  facts :  He  is  first  named  in  the  account  of  Jesus 
calling  men  into  companionship  with  himself  (Mk.  i.  16 ; 
Mt.  iv.  18),  and  his  name  always  heads  the  list  of  the 
apostles  (Mk.  iii.  15;  Mt.  x.  2;  Lk.  vi.  14;  Acts  i.  13). 
His  personal  qualities  gave  him  a  certain  preeminence  in 
the  company ;  his  eager,  forthputting  nature  fitted  him  for 
prominence.     These  qualities  found  expression  in  the  con- 


142  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

fession  whicli  called  out  the  ascription  of  eminence  to  him. 
It  was  as  the  "first  Christian,"  expressing  faith  in  Jesus' 
messiahship,  that  he  received  the  assurance  of  his  future 
function  among  the  first  believers.  It  was  Peter,  also,  who 
spoke  the  word  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  an  epoch-making 
crisis  in  the  establishment  of  the  Church  (Acts  ii.).  The 
official  status  which  Jesus  assigned  him  consisted  in  his 
giving  him  the  precedence  in  opening  "a  door  of  faith 
unto  the  Gentiles"  (Acts  xiv.  27).  In  this  sense  he  was 
in  fact  the  chief  foundation-stone  used  in  building  the 
Church,  although  in  no  exclusive  sense  (Eph.  ii.  20). 

In  important  respects  Peter  was,  in  his  personal  char- 
acteristics, what  his  name  signified.  But  it  was  only  by 
his  Messianic  faith  that  he  became  the  rock-apostle  on 
which  the  Church  could  be  built.  Jesus'  thought  was 
that  the  Church  should  stand  strong  and  immovable  when 
supported  by  those  who  were  thus  firm  in  the  faith  of  his 
sonship  to  God.  It  should  be  more  than  a  match  for  the 
"  gates  of  Hades,"  the  portals  which  effectually  close  the 
world  of  the  dead  against  their  escape,  —  a  symbol  of 
the  greatest  imaginable  force.  This  confident  assertion  of 
Jesus  concerning  his  Church  certainly  rests  upon  these 
two  ideas  as  its  chief  presuppositions :  first,  that  his  own 
person  is  the  main  guaranty  of  its  success ;  and,  second, 
that  the  Church  is  to  be  the  principal  means  whereby  the 
Kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteousness  are  to  be  realized 
among  men. 

This  second  presupposition  finds  its  clearest  expression 
in  the  words :  "  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  King- 
dom of  heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose 
on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven  "  (Mt.  xvi.  19).  It  is 
evident  that  the  second  part  of  this  verse  is  intended  to 
explain  the  first  part ;  the  power  denoted  by  "  the  keys  " 
is  the  same  as  the  power  to  "bind  and  loose."  We  have 
already  observed  that  the  power  to  bind  and  loose  is  else- 
where committed  to  all  Christ's  disciples :  "  What  things 
soever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven : 
and  what  things  soever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be 


THE    CHRISTIAN   BROTHERHOOD  143 

loosed  in  heaven  "  (Mt.  xviii.  18).  Whether  we  adopt 
the  view  of  Weiss  that  this  saying  belongs  in  this  latter 
connection  and  was  only  applied  by  the  evangelist  to 
Peter,  or  hold  that  the  saying  was  uttered  in  both  con- 
nections, —  in  either  cas';,  no  privilege  is  assigned  by  our 
Lord  to  Peter  which  was  not  given  to  other  believers.  It 
only  remains  to  inquire  to  what  function  or  work  the 
figures  of  "  the  keys "  and  of  "  binding  and  loosing " 
naturally  point. 

It  is  Avell  established  that  "binding  and  loosing"  was 
a  current  Rabbinic  term  for  forbidding  and  permitting.^ 
Discipline  and  government  must  be  instituted  in  the  com- 
munity of  professed  believers,  and  this  duty  was  committed 
to  the  disciples.  What  was  essential  to  fellowship  must 
be  determined  and  maintained  as  a  safeguard  against  cor- 
ruption. Jesus  had  given  a  new  spiritual  law ;  he  had  set 
forth  the  principles  of  his  Kingdom  which  were  historically 
connected  with  the  Jewish  religion,  and  yet  rose  above  it. 
His  disciples  would  have  the  delicate  duty  and  the  heavy 
responsibility  of  legislating  for  the  new  community  to 
which  his  movement  would  soon  give  rise.  Jesus  had  laid 
down  no  explicit  code  of  rules ;  he  left  it  to  those  whom 
he  had  trained  to  apply  his  principles  and  tests  to  men, 
and,  under  the  divine  guidance,  to  determine  what  was 
consistent,  and  what  inconsistent,  w^th  citizenship  in  the 
commonwealth  of  his  followers.  His  Church  was  to  take 
its  place  amidst  the  prevalent  corruptions  of  heathenism 

1  A  large  number  of  examples  are  given  by  Lightfoot,  Hone  Hehraicce, 
II.  237-240  (Oxford  ed.),  who  says  :  "  To  this,  therefore,  do  these  words 
amount :  When  the  time  was  come,  wherein  the  Mosaic  law,  as  to  some 
part  of  it,  was  to  be  abolished  and  left  off ;  and  as  to  another  part  of  it, 
was  to  be  continued,  and  to  last  forever  :  he  granted  Peter  here,  and  to 
the  rest  of  the  apostles,  ch.  xviii.  18,  a  power  to  abolish  or  confirm  what 
they  thought  good,  and  as  they  thought  good,  being  taught  this  and  led 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  if  he  should  say  :  '  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  in 
the  law  of  Moses,  that  is,  forbid,  it  shall  be  forbidden,  the  Divine  author- 
ity confirming  it ;  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose,  that  is,  permit,  or  shall 
teach  that  it  is  permitted  and  lawful,  shall  be  lawful  and  permitted.'' 
Hence  they  hound,  that  is,  forbade,  circumcision  to  the  believers  ;  eating 
of  things  offered  to  idols,  of  things  strangled,  and  of  blood  for  a  time  to 
the  Gentiles.  They  loosed,  that  is,  allowed,  purification  to  Paul,  and  tu 
four  other  brethren,"  etc. 


144  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

and  the  deadening  formalism  of  Judaism,  and  to  maintain 
the  standards  of  a  purely  ethical  and  spiritual  religion. 
Upon  those  to  whom  he  spoke  in  this  closing  period  of  his 
ministry  would  rest  the  great  responsibility  of  faithfully 
maintaining  his  truth,  and  of  preserving  the  infant  com- 
munity from  the  invasions  of  error  and  corruption.  In  a 
real  sense,  those  who  professed  adherence  to  him  held  the 
keys  of  the  Kingdom;  they  possessed  the  authoritative 
knowledge  of  the  conditions  of  participation  in  it;  they 
must  bind  and  loose,  that  is,  declare  what  was  forbidden 
and  what  permitted  within  the  meaning  of  its  heavenly 
laws. 

The  second  passage  in  which  the  Ecclesia  is  mentioned 
is  Mt.  xviii.  15-20,  where  the  proper  action  of  the  assem- 
bly towards  a  sinning  member  is  described,  and  the  promise 
of  a  divine  ratification  and  of  the  presence  of  Messiah  with 
them  expressed.  The  genuineness  of  the  passage  —  at 
least,  in  part  —  has  been  called  in  question,  on  the  ground 
that  it  presents  a  more  developed  plan  of  Church  disci- 
pline than  we  have  reason  to  expect  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus.  Weiss,  on  the  contrary,  holds  that  the  passage 
relates  neither  to  Church  discipline  nor  to  excommunica- 
tion, and  defends  its  genuineness.^  Wendt  admits  the 
genuineness  of  verses  15  and  16  only,  and  regards  the  re- 
mainder of  the  passage  as  an  interpolation  either  of  the 
evangelist  or  of  a  later  writer.^  It  seems  to  me  probable 
that  the  passage  is  composite.  Verses  19  and  20,  which 
speak  of  the  agreement  of  "  two "  in  prayer  and  of  the 
meeting  of  "  two  or  three,"  appear  to  be  coupled  with 
what  is  said  about  the  offending  brother  in  consequence 
of  an  outward  resemblance  to  verse  16,  which  speaks  of 
"  two  or  three  witnesses."  Moreover,  the  passage  in  Luke 
(xvii.  3,  4),  which  is  parallel  to  verses  15  and  16,  refers 
only  to  private  reconciliation,  suggesting  the  question 
whether  the  mediation  of  the  congregation  was  really 
spoken  of  in  this  connection.  It  is  certainly  strange  that 
if  this  passage  concerning  the  Church  was  in  the  Logia, 
Luke  should  have  entirely  passed  it  by.     While,  therefore, 

^  3IaUhausev.,  p.  418  sq.  ^  Lehre  Jesu,  p,  156. 


THE   CHRISTIAN   BROTHERHOOD  145 

we  cannot  maintain  the  strict  unity  of  the  passage,  it  may 
fairly  be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  extreme  sim- 
plicity of  the  rule  and  of  the  conditions  to  which  it  is  to 
apply  favor  the  primitive  character  of  the  saying  about 
the  mediation  of  the  Church.  "  The  Church "  here  ap- 
pears to  denote  neither  a  local  church  nor  an  aggregate 
of  local  churches,  but  the  congregation  of  disciples  con- 
ceived of  as  one  assembly.  That  Jesus  should  have  spoken 
of  "  the  Church  "  in  this  sense,  and  should  have  assigned 
to  it  a  function  in  composing  differences  among  brethren, 
is  in  no  way  improbable.  His  disciples  did  constitute  an 
eKKXrjala  —  the  usual  Septuagint  word  for  the  congrega- 
tion (^gi'J)  of  Israel ;  why  should  he  not  have  spoken  of 
them  as  an  assembly  or  community,  and  have  recognized 
the  usefulness  to  the  individual  believer,  in  cases  of  diffi- 
culty, of  their  common  social  life  and  relations?  The 
organization  here  presupposed  is  the  simplest  possible.  It 
is  a  mere  community  of  brethren  without  an  official  head. 
The  "binding  and  loosing"  is  the  function  of  all  the  dis- 
ciples, not  of  the  apostles  only.  This  fact  strongly  favors 
the  view  that  Matthew  was  here  following  some  trust- 
worthy tradition  of  the  Lord's  words,  and  not  attributing 
to  him  by  a  historical  prolepsis  language  which  reflects 
later  conditions. 

In  this  view  the  passage  begins  by  directing  that  in  case 
one  disciple  shall  do  another  an  injustice,  the  injured  party 
shall  privately  confer  with  the  offender,  and,  by  seeking 
to  reveal  to  him  the  character  of  his  fault,  endeavor  to 
effect  a  reconciliation  (y.  15).  If  this  purely  private  con- 
ference does  not  avail,  let  another  be  held  in  the  presence 
of  "two  or  three  witnesses,"  who  are  competent  to  attest 
the  reality  of  the  offence,  and  to  show  the  offender  that 
the  injured  brother's  judgment  was  not  merely  subjective 
(y.  16).  If,  now,  the  guilty  party  will  not  respect  the 
judgment  of  the  "  two  or  three  witnesses,"  let  the  case  be 
presented  to  the  whole  congregation.  If  they  all  agree  in 
making  the  same  accusing  judgment,  already  twice  made, 
no  room  is  left  for  the  reply  that  the  accusation  was 
dictated  by  prejudice  or  passion.     If  the  offender  still  re- 


146  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

fuses  to  acknowledge  his  fault,  "  let  him  be  unto  thee  as 
the  Gentile  and  the  publican  "  {v.  17)  ;  that  is,  let  him  be 
regarded  as  self -excluded,  by  the  very  nature  of  his  action, 
from  the  fellowship  of  the  disciples.  The  act  of  the 
whole  united  assembly  in  so  "  binding  and  loosing"  — in  so 
upholding  the  law  of  its  very  existence,  and  determining 
what  is  inconsistent  with  that  law  —  shall  be  divinely 
ratified  (^v.  18).  The  Messiah  himself  will  spiritually 
abide  with  his  people,  and  where  they  meet  and  agree  in 
his  name  —  truly  preserving  his  S]3irit  and  maintaining 
inviolate  his  heavenly  law  —  he  will  sustain  and  reward 
them  (^vv.  19,  20). 

We  turn  to  the  "great  commission"  (Mt.  xxviii.  18-20). 
A  parallel,  in  briefer  form,  is  found  in  the  early,  but  prob- 
ably spurious,  appendix  to  Mark's  Gospel  (xvi.  15,  16). 
No  passage  which  can  strictly  be  called  parallel  exists  in 
Luke.  It  is  not  strange  that,  in  these  circumstances,  the 
genuineness  of  the  passage  should  be  extensively  questioned. 
The  principal  objections  to  it  are  as  follows  :  (1)  The  diffi- 
culty which  the  primitive  apostles  found  in  consenting  to 
the  idea  of  missions  to  the  Gentiles  cannot  be  explained  if 
Jesus  had  solemnly  charged  his  disciples  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  whole  world.  (2)  Jesus  regarded  his  own 
mission  as  limited  to  Israel  (Mt.  xv.  24),  and  in  sending 
out  the  Twelve,  directed  them  to  "  go  not  into  the  way  of 
the  Gentiles,  nor  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  "  (Mt. 
ix.  5).  (3)  The  Trinitarian  baptismal  formula  (y.  19)  re- 
flects later  ecclesiastical  usage  since  the  apostles  baptized, 
as  they  taught  (Acts  iv.  18),  in  the  name  of  Jesus  only 
(Acts  ii.  38;  viii.  16;  x.  48;  xix.  5).  Weiss  regards  this 
"  commission "  as  expressing  an  assurance  spiritually  in- 
spired in  the  hearts  of  the  disciples  by  the  exalted  Christ, 
and  thinks  that  its  historical  basis  is  Mt.  xviii.  20  :  "  Where 
two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I 
in  the  midst  of  them."  ^ 

The  first  of  the  objections  just  enumerated  somewhat 
misstates  the  case.  The  primitive  apostles  were,  no  doubt, 
affected  by  Jewish  limitations  of  view  in  important  re- 

1  Life  of  Christ,  III.  421,  422  (Bk,  VII.  ch.  xii.). 


THE   CHRISTIAN   BROTHERHOOD  147 

spects,  but  they  did  not  entertain  the  idea  that  the  gospel 
was  for  the  Jews  alone.  At  Pentecost  Peter  saw  in  the 
conversion  of  the  multitude  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
that  the  Spirit  should  be  poured  out  on  "all  flesh"  (Acts 
ii.  17).  Early  in  his  work  he  was  taught  that  "God  is 
no  respecter  of  persons  "  (Acts  x.  34),  although  he  did 
not  always  consistently  adhere  to  the  principle.  Peter  was 
the  means  of  converting  the  Roman  centurion,  Cornelius 
(Acts  xi.).  The  mission  at  Antioch,  which  soon  extended 
its  scope  to  the  Gentiles  (Gal.  ii.  12),  was  supervised  by 
the  Jerusalem  church  (Acts  xi.  22  s^.).  The  apostles  at 
Jerusalem  rejoiced  when  they  heard  that  the  Gentiles  were 
receiving  the  gospel  (Acts  xi.  1,  18).  Their  scruples  con- 
cerned the  conditions  on  which  they  might  properly  be 
received  into  the  Christian  community,  and  the  adjustment 
of  relations  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians. 
They  probably  had  some  sympathy,  at  first,  with  the  view 
that  the  heathen  converts  must  be  circumcised  and  observe 
the  Mosaic  law  (Acts  xv.  1 ;  Gal.  ii.  12-14),  but,  if  so,  that 
position  was  distinctly  abandoned  at  the  council  (Acts  xv. 
28  ;  Gal.  ii.  6,  9, 10).  The  apostles  did  not  doubt  that  the 
gospel  was  for  the  heathen ;  they  were  perplexed  as  to  the 
adjustment  of  this  fact  to  their  inherited  conviction  that 
the  observance  of  their  law  was  essential  to  salvation. 

In  the  light  of  Jesus'  teaching  as  a  whole  there  is  no 
improbability,  as  the  second  objection  to  the  genuineness 
of  the  passage  alleges,  that  he  should  have  charged  his 
disciples  to  carry  his  gospel  to  the  whole  world.  The  idea 
of  universality  was  its  dominant  note.  He  described  his 
disciples  as  the  salt  of  the  earth  and  the  light  of  the  world 
(Mt.  V.  13, 14).  He  proposed  at  the  beginning  to  make  his 
followers  "  fishers  of  men  "  (Mk.  i.  17).  What  he  had 
spoken  in  darkness  they  were  to  speak  in  the  light  and  to 
proclaim  from  the  housetops  (Mt.  x.  27).  Although,  as  the 
Jewish  Messiah,  he  was  specially  sent  to  his  own  people 
(Mt.  XV.  24),  he  did  not  limit  his  ministry  to  them.  He 
found  and  welcomed  faith  in  the  Canaanitish  woman  (Mt. 
XV.  21  sg.),  in  the  Roman  centurion  (Mt.  viii.  5-13  ;  Lk.  vii. 
1-10),  and  in  the  Samaritan  lepers  (Lk.  xvii.  11-19).    He 


148  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

did  not  confine  his  ministry  strictly  to  Judaism,  but  travelled 
through  Samaria  (Lk.  xvii.  11),  to  Csesarea  Philippi  (Mk. 
viii.  27;  Mt.  xvi.  13),  and  Phoenicia  (Mk.  vii.  24;  Mt.  xv. 
21),  on  the  north,  and  eastward  into  Perea  (Mk.  x.  1 ;  Mt. 
xix.  1).  He  spoke  of  his  gospel  as  destined  to  be  preached 
throughout  the  whole  world  (Mt.  xxiv.  14 ;  xxvi.  13  ;  Mk. 
xiv.  9),  and  declared  that  many  should  come  from  the  east 
and  from  the  west,  and  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  (Mt.  viii.  11;  cf.  Lk.  xiii. 
28-30).  The  universality  of  the  "great  commission"  is 
in  no  way  inconsistent  either  with  the  teaching  and  work 
of  Jesus  during  his  ministry,  or  with  the  apprehension  of 
that  teaching  in  the  primitive  Church.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is,  in  fact,  a  summary  of  what  he  taught,  and  expresses 
the  ideal  which  the  early  Church  was  seeking,  with  many 
practical  perplexities,  to  realize,  and  which  was  so  far 
realized  as  to  open  the  way  for  the  work  of  Paul,  the 
champion  of  a  universal  gospel. 

The  third  objection  is  of  minor  importance.  Since  no 
expression  resembling  this  baptismal  formula  is  elsewhere 
found  in  our  sources,  and  in  view  of  the  uniform  usage  of 
the  primitive  Church  in  baptizing  in  the  name  of  Jesus, 
the  question  naturally  arises  whether  this  formula  does 
not  reflect  a  later  stage  of  ecclesiastical  usage,  akin  to  the 
Trinitarian  benedictions  of  the  apostle  Paul.  But,  if  so, 
it  merely  follows  that  we  have  here  a  later  formulation  of 
the  import  of  baptism  and  of  discipleship,  whose  elements 
are  already  contained  in  Jesus'  teaching.  If,  therefore,  in 
all  the  circumstances,  we  may  not  insist  upon  the  original- 
ity of  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  commission,  we  may  con- 
fidently say  that,  in  its  substance,  it  accords  with  the 
whole  genius  of  our  Lord's  teaching  and  work,  and  well 
expresses  what  we  may  believe  to  have  been  the  hope  and 
purpose  of  Jesus  in  associating  his  disciples  together  for 
the  preservation  and  propagation  of  his  truth  and  Kingdom. 

The  differences  which  exist  among  scholars  as  to  the 
import  and  purpose  of  the  Lord's  supper  have  already 
been  incidentally  considered  in  another  connection.  I 
cannot  believe  that  it  is  legitimate  to  conclude  from  the 


THE   CHRISTIAN   BROTHERHOOD  149 

silence  of  Mark  and  Matthew  that  the  form  of  tradition 
Avhich  we  find  in  Paul  and  Luke,  which  represents  Jesus 
as  founding  a  permanent  institution,  is  without  historic 
foundation.  This  supposition,  gratuitous  in  itself,  leaves 
the  action  of  Jesus  on  the  solemn  occasion  described  in 
our  sources  without  an  adequate  motive.  In  point  of  time 
of  writing,  Paul's  version  of  the  event  is  the  earliest,  and 
was,  he  says,  received  from  Qcltto)  the  Lord,  probably 
meaning  mediately,  through  trustworthj^  tradition.  Criti- 
cism has  not,  in  my  judgment,  given  sufficient  reasons  for 
questioning  his  confidence  in  its  correctness. 

Jesus  founded  both  the  rites  which  he  sanctioned  — 
baptism  and  the  supper  —  upon  practices  which  were  in 
current  use.  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  ceremonial 
lustrations.  In  spite  of  doubts  which  have  been  raised,  it 
is  well  settled  that  proselytes  to  the  Jewish  religion  were 
baptized  when  they  were  admitted  to  participation  in  the 
theocratic  life.^  Tlie  forerunner  had  already  appropriated 
this  practice  as  symbolizing  the  inward  purification  which 
God  required  in  preparation  for  the  acceptance  of  the 
Messiah.  Jesus  accordingly  made  baptism  a  symbol  of 
spiritual  renewal  —  an  outward  sign  and  pledge  of  forgive- 
ness for  all  such  as  repent  of  their  sins  and  become  his 
disciples.  Answering  to  this  initiatory  rite  is  the  holy 
supper,  which  symbolizes  and  attests  to  the  believer  the 
divine  grace  which  is  conferred  through  communion  with 
the  Saviour.  Generically  considered,  both  signify  the 
same  thing ;  they  are  pictorial  words  of  God  addressed  to 
the  eye,  assuring  men  of  spiritual  blessings  in  Christ  upon 
condition  of  their  willingness  to  receive  them.  They  are 
pictures  and  promises  of  the  divine  favor  to  men  —  the 
one  portraying  that  grace  in  the  inception  of  its  work  in 
the  soul,  the  other  typifying  its  continuous  and  progressive 
operation. 

1  See  Schiirer,  Jeimsh  People,  II.  321  (§  31). 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  PAROUSIA  AND  THE  JUDGMENT 

There  are  five  passages  of  special  importance  with 
which  we  have  to  deal  in  discussing  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
concerning  his  parousia.  We  shall  consider  them  in  order. 
Following  the  specific  instructions  given  to  the  Twelve 
when  Jesus  sent  them  out  (Mk.  vi.  7-11 ;  Mt.  x.  1-15 ; 
Lk.  ix.  1-5),  we  find  in  Matthew  (x.  16-42)  an  extended 
discourse  of  a  more  general  character.  In  the  midst  of 
that  discourse  occurs  this  saying :  ''  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
ye  shall  not  have  gone  through  the  cities  of  Israel,  till  the 
Son  of  man  be  come"  (x.  23).  There  is  no  parallel  to 
this  passage  in  Mark  or  Luke.  But  a  considerable  part  of 
the  matter  which  immediately  precedes  the  passage  just 
cited  is  found  in  Mark  (xiii.  9-13)  and  Luke  (xii.  11,  12 ; 
xxi.  12-17) ;  in  other  words,  this  paragraph  which  in  Mat- 
thew (x.  16-23)  ends  with  the  verse  in  question  is  found 
almost  entire  in  Jesus'  eschatological  discourse  as  given 
by  Mk.  xiii.  and  Lk.  xxi.  These  facts  alone  render  it 
impossible  to  suppose  that  Jesus  really  predicted  his 
second  coming  before  the  Twelve  had  finished  their  mis- 
sion. This  whole  discourse  (Mt.  x.  16-42)  is  demon- 
strably a  collection  of  materials  derived  from  various 
sources,  and  belonging  in  various  connections,  and  verse 
23,  which  speaks  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  is,  in 
all  probability,  a  reminiscence  of  the  prediction  of  the 
parousia  in  the  great  eschatological  discourse  of  Mk,  xiii., 
Lk.  xxi.,  and  Mt.  xxiv.,  and  therefore  requires  no  separate 
consideration. 

The  second  passage  to  be  noticed  is  found  in  all  the 
Synoptics  in  the  same  connection,  but  in  slightly  varying 
form.     In   Mark  the  passage  reads:  "And  he  said  unto 

150 


THE  PAROUSIA  AND  THE  JUDGMENT       151 

them,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  There  be  some  here  of  them 
that  stand  by,  which  shall  in  no  wise  taste  of  death,  till 
they  see  the  Kingdom  of  God  come  with  power  "  (ix.  1). 
Corresponding  to  the  closing  words  we  have  in  Luke : 
"till  they  see  the  Kingdom  of  God"  (ix.  27),  and  in 
Matthew :  "  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his 
Kingdom"  (xvi.  28).  The  passage  occurs  at  the  end  of 
a  discourse  following  Peter's  confession,  in  which  Jesus 
foretells  his  death  and  resurrection.  He  must  suffer  and 
die  and  his  disciples  must  suffer  for  his  sake.  They  are 
required  to  choose  between  him  and  the  world,  and  if  they 
prove  steadfast,  he  will  accept  them  when  he  comes  in  his 
glory.  Then  he  added  the  saying  in  question.  The  first 
evangelist  must  have  understood  the  words  to  refer  to  the 
parousia.  The  language  of  Mark  and  Luke  is  general 
enough  to  apply  to  any  crisis  in  the  realization  of  the 
Kingdom.  The  former  meaning  would  connect  our  pas- 
sage with  the  reference  to  the  "  coming  "  in  the  preceding 
verse  ;  the  latter  would  connect  it  quite  appropriately  with 
the  discourse  as  a  whole,  thus :  You  must  suffer  in  my 
cause;  renounce  the  world;  but  this  you  may  well  do  since 
thereby  you  will  gain  my  salvation  ;  if  you  fail,  you  will 
be  disapproved  at  the  judgment ;  to  such  failure  you  will 
be  tempted  by  my  death  and  the  apparent  defeat  of  my 
work,  but  I  tell  you  that  some  of  you  will  live  to  see  my 
Kingdom  triumph.  Considered  from  the  standpoint  of 
exegesis  alone,  I  should  say  that  the  ivords  in  the  form  in 
which  they  appear  in  our  sources  may  naturally  refer  to 
the  parousia ;  this  is  especially  clear  in  the  case  of  Mat-i 
thew.  But  considered  from  the  standpoint  of  criticism 
and  from  that  of  intrinsic  probability,  the  case  is  quite  dif- 
ferent. Why  should  Jesus  declare  so  definitely  the  time 
of  his  second  coming  in  that  particular  connection  ?  Apart 
from  the  difficulty  raised  by  the  fact  that  he  elsewhere  dis- 
claimed knowing  the  time  of  that  event  (Mk.  xiii.  32), 
there  is  no  particular  motive  for  such  a  prediction  here. 
It  is  certainly  unwarranted  to  say  that  Jesus  explicitl}^ 
predicted  an  event  connected  Avith  the  consummation  of 
his  Kingdom  which  did  not  happen,  unless  the  critical  and 


\ 


152  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

exegetical  grounds  for  so  doing  are  compelling.     In  this  : 
case,  at  least,  they  are  not  so.    The  language  of  Mark  and  j 
Luke  is  more  naturally  explained  as  referring  to  some  spe-  ' 
cial   crisis  in  his  work  or  to  the  general  triumph  of  his 
Kingdom ;  and  this  view  has  the  advantage  when  our  pas- 
sao'e  is  considered  in  its  relation  to  tlie  discourse   as  a 

o 

whole.  I  disclaim  making  any  appeal  to  dogmatic  con- 
siderations on  such  subjects,  but  I  do  not  think  it  unwar- 
ranted to  assume  that  the  words  of  Jesus  in  their  original 
form  and  meaning  were  probably  self-consistent  and  that 
there  is  a  strong  presumption  against  supposing  that  he 
definitely  foretold  events  which  did  not  happen.  My  con-  \ 
elusion  is  that  this  passage  did  not  refer  originally  to  our 
Lord's  visible  return  to  earth. 

The  third  passage  to  be  considered  is  the  great  eschato- 
logical  discourse  (Mk.  xiii. ;  Mt.  xxiv. ;  Lk.  xxi.).  Taking 
Mark  as  a  basis,  the  drift  of  this  discourse  is  as  follows : 
As  Jesus  and  his  disciples  come  out  of  the  temple  one 
of  them  calls  his  attention  to  the  massive  structures  of 
the  temple-area.  He  replies  that,  notwithstanding  their 
strength,  they  shall  be  completely  thrown  down.  Later 
they  ask  him  when  this  overthrow  will  occur  and  what 
will  be  the  sign  of  its  accomplishment.  In  reply  he  de- 
scribes certain  events  which  they  will  soon  observe :  the 
appearance  of  pretenders,  wars  and  tumults,  earthquakes 
and  famines,  persecutions  and  divisions,  —  and  warns  them 
against  supposing  that  these  are  signs  of  the  impending 
catastrophe.  The  gospel  must  be  preached  to  all  nations 
before  the  destruction  of  the  temple  occurs  (^vv.  1-13). 
When,  however,  the  symbols  of  Roman  power  are  seen  in  | 
the  temple-enclosure,^  then  it  will  be  time  to  prepare  for 
the  great  calamities  which  shall  accompany  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  temple  and  city  (^vv.  14-23.)  Following  these 
calamities,  portents  will  appear  in  the  skies  and  the  Son 
of  man  will  come  "  in  clouds  with  great  power  and  glory." 
This  event  will  happen  within  the  lifetime  of  the  present 

1  Such  is  the  obvious  meaning  of:  "the  abomination  of  desolation 
standing  where  he  ought  not"  (Mk.  xiii.  14).  Cf.  the  parallel  in  Luke  : 
"  When  ye  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies"  (xxi.  20). 


THE    PAROUSIA   AND    THE   JUDGMENT  153 

generation,   although  only  the    Father  knows    the   exact 
time  (^vv.  24-33). 

It  is  quite  clear  that  according  to  Mark  nothing  is  said 
about  the  parousia  in  the  first  part  of  this  discourse. 
That  is  a  separate  event  which  is  to  follow  the  destruction 
of  the  temple,  but  (according  to  the  present  form  of  the 
discourse)  within  a  comparatively  short  time.  Luke  closely 
follows  Mark,  but  Matthew  has  a  number  of  distinctive 
features.  He  represents  the  disciples  as  asking  not  only 
about  the  time  of  the  temple's  overthroAv,  but  about  "  the 
sign  of  his  coming  and  of  the  end  of  the  age  "  (xxiv.  3), 
as  if  they  were  either  one  event  or  inseparably  connected. 
The  idea  that  one  and  the  same  event,  namely,  "the  end" 
(v.  14),  is  referred  to  in  the  discourse  dominates  Mat- 
thew's version  throughout.  Accordingly,  he  does  not 
separate  the  appearance  of  the  Roman  standards  from  the 
previous  events  (v.  15),  as  do  Mark  and  Luke,  but  con- 
nects this  event  immediately  with  those  which  precede  it 
and  assigns  to  the  tv\^o  no  different  premonitory  signifi- 
cance. Throughout  this  section  (yv.  15-28),  in  which  the 
"  abomination  of  desolation  "  and  its  attendant  evils  are 
described,  it  is  everywhere  assumed  (see  v,  27)  that  it  is 
the  sign  of  Messiah's  coming,  and  not,  as  in  Mark  and 
Luke,  the  sign  of  the  temple's  overthrow.  In  keeping 
with  this  representation  the  coming  of  Christ  is  described 
as  following  immediately  after  the  appearance  of  the 
Roman  signals.  It  is  evident  that  the  difficulties  of  the 
passage,  which  are  sufficiently  great  in  its  more  primitive 
form,  are  immensely  enhanced  in  Matthew's  re-working  of 
the  material.  This  version  of  the  discourse  tells  us  that 
Jesus  said  he  would  personally  and  visibly  return  to  earth 
in  immediate  connection  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, but  that  before  this  event  his  gospel  should  be 
preached  throughout  the  whole  world;  but  despite  this 
precise  prediction  as  to  the  time  of  his  coming,  that  "  no 
one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but 
only  the  Father,"  knew  the  exact  time  ;  and  that  he  sol- 
emnly added :  "  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away  :  but  my 
words  shall  not  pass  away."     This  construction  of  the  dis- 


154  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

course  involves  Jesus  in  a  tissue  of  contradictions  which 
we  must  not  attribute  to  him  without  the  most  compelling 
reasons.  We  are,  therefore,  justified  in  using  the  first 
Gospel  only  as  a  secondary  source  of  Jesus'  teaching  on 
this  subject,  and  in  employing  its  version  of  this  discourse 
only  so  far  as  it  may  be  useful  in  suggesting  the  motive  of 
variations  from  his  probable  meaning. 

Criticism  has  expended  a  great  deal  of  ingenuity  upon 
the  effort  to  determine  the  sources  of  this  discourse.  By 
many  it  is  thought  to  be  a  combination  of  genuine  words  of 
Jesus,  with  a  short  Jewish-Christian  apocalypse.^  Wendt 
has  sought  to  reconstruct  this  apocalypse  from  Mk.  xiii.  It 
would  read  as  follows :  (^vv.  7,  8)  And  when  ye  shall  hear 
of  wars  and  rumours  of  wars,  be  not  troubled :  these  things 
must  needs  come  to  pass ;  but  the  end  is  not  yet.  For 
nation  slmll  rise  against  nation,  and  kingdom  against  king- 
dom :  there  shall  be  earthquakes  in  divers  places ;  there 
shall  be  famines  :  these  things  are  the  beginning  of  travail. 
(vv.  14-20)  But  when  ye  see  the  abomination  of  desola- 
tion standing  where  he  ought  not  (let  him  that  readeth 
understand),  then  let  them  that  are  in  Judaea  flee  unto  the 
mountains :  and  let  him  that  is  on  the  housetop  not  go 
down,  nor  enter  in,  to  take  anything  out  of  his  house : 
and  let  him  that  is  in  the  field  not  return  back  to  take  his 
cloke.  But  woe  unto  them  that  are  with  child  and  to 
them  that  give  suck  in  those  days !  And  pray  ye  that  it 
be  not  in  the  winter.  For  those  days  shall  be  tribulation, 
such  as  there  hath  not  been  the  like  from  the  beginning  of 
the  creation  which  God  created  until  now,  and  never  shall 
be.  And  except  the  Lord  had  shortened  the  days,  no  flesh 
would  have  been  saved :  but  for  the  elect's  sake,  whom  he 
chose,  he  shortened  the  days. 

(yv.  24-27)  But  in  those  days,  after  that  tribulation, 
the  sun  shall  be  darkened,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her 

1  Among  those  who  have  elaborated  this  theory  are  Weiffenbach,  Der 
WiederkunftsgedanJce  Jesu,  p.  135  sq.  (who  used  the  theory  to  prove  that  j 
what  Jesus  really  predicted  in  the  so-called  parousia-discourse  was  his  res-  \ 
urrection)  ;  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  pp.  9-21 ;  and  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  ^ 
Theol.  I.  327. 


THE  PAROUSIA   AND    THE   JUDGMENT  155 

light,  and  the  stars  shall  be  falling  from  heaven,  and  the 
powers  that  are  in  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken.  And  then 
shall  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  clouds  with  great 
power  and  glory.  And  then  shall  he  send  forth  the  angels, 
and  shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds, 
from  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  to  the  uttermost  part 
of  heaven,  (vy.  30,  31)  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  This  gen- 
eration shall  not  pass  away,  until  all  these  things  be  accom- 
plished. Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away :  but  my  words 
shall  not  pass  away. 

The  remainder  of  the  chapter,  with  a  slight  change  of 
order,  is  held  to  represent  the  genuine  words  of  Jesus,  and 
would  read  as  follows:  (vv.  1-6)  And  as  he  went  forth 
out  of  the  temple,  one  of  his  disciples  saith  unto  him, 
Master,  behold,  what  manner  of  stones  and  what  manner 
of  buildings  !  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Seest  thou  these 
great  buildings  ?  there  shall  not  be  left  here  one  stone 
upon  another,  which  shall  not  be  thrown  down. 

And  as  he  sat  on  tli«  Mount  of  Olives  over  against  the 
temple,  Peter  and  James  and  John  and  Andrew  asked  him 
privately.  Tell  us,  when  shall  these  things  be  ?  and  what 
shall  be  the  sign  when  these  things  are  all  about  to 
be  accomplished?  And  Jesus  began  to  say  unto  them. 
Take  heed  that  no  man  lead  you  astray.  Many  shall 
come  in  my  name,  saying,  I  am  he ;  and  shall  lead  many 
astray. 

(yv.  21-23)  And  then  if  any  man  shall  say  unto  you, 
Lo,  here  is  the  Christ ;  or,  Lo,  there ;  believe  it  not :  for 
there  shall  arise  false  Christs  and  false  prophets,  and  shall 
shew  signs  and  wonders,  that  they  may  lead  astray,  if  pos- 
sible, the  elect.  But  take  ye  heed :  behold,  I  have  told 
you  all  things  beforehand. 

(y.  9)  But  take  ye  heed  to  yourselves:  for  they  shall 
deliver  you  up  to  councils ;  and  in  synagogues  shall  ye  be 
beaten ;  and  before  governors  and  kings  shall  ye  stand  for 
my  sake,  for  a  testimony  unto  them.  (^vv.  11-13)  And 
when  they  lead  you  to  judgement,  and  deliver  you  up,  be 
not  anxious  beforehand  what  ye  shall  speak :  but  whatso- 
ever shall  be  given  you  in  that  hour,  that  speak  ye :  for  it 


156  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  brother 
shall  deliver  up  brother  to  death,  and  the  father  his  child ; 
and  children  shall  rise  up  against  parents.,  and  cause  them 
to  be  put  to  death.  And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  men  for 
my  name's  sake  :  but  he  that  endureth  to  the  end,  the 
same  shall  be  saved,  (vv.  28,  29)  Now  from  the  fig  tree 
learn  her  parable  :  when  her  branch  is  now  become  tender, 
and  putteth  forth  its  leaves,  ye  know  that  the  summer  is 
nigh ;  even  so  ye  also,  when  ye  see  these  things  coming  to 
pass,  know  ye  that  he  is  nigh,  even  at  the  doors,  {yv.  32- 
36)  But  of  that  day  or  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not 
even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father. 
Take  ye  heed,  watch  and  pray :  for  ye  know  not  when  the 
time  is.  It  is  as  when  a  man,  sojourning  in  another  coun- 
try, having  left  his  house,  and  given  authority  to  his  ser- 
vants, to  each  one  his  work,  commanded  also  the  porter  to 
watch.  Watch  therefore:  for  ye  know  not  when  the  lord 
of  the  house  cometh,  whether  at  even,  or  at  midnight,  or 
at  cockcrowing,  or  in  the  morning ;  lest  coming  suddenly 
he  find  you  sleeping.  And  what  I  say  unto  you  I  say  unto 
all.  Watch. 

Verse  10 :  "  And  the  gospel  must  first  be  preached  unto 
all  the  nations,"  is  regarded  b}^  Wendt  as  an  addition  which 
did  not  originally  belong  to  either  group. 

The  grounds  on  which  the  division  of  material  is  made 
are,  briefly,  these :  (1)  Each  group  forms  a  consistent  and 
connected  whole.  The  first  passage  speaks  of  the  future 
coming  of  the  Messiah  from  heaven ;  the  second  answers 
the  question  of  the  disciples  respecting  the  time  and  sign 
of  the  temple's  destruction.  (2)  The  differences  between 
the  two  groups  show  that  they  were  originally  separate. 
The  woes  or  sori-ows  are  different  in  the  two  passages. 
The  "  little  apocalypse  "  opens  with  a  description  of  distant 
wars  and  natural  calamities  which  threaten  to  affect  the 
Christian  along  with  the  other  residents  of  Judea.  They 
are  general  and  come  upon  all  alike  (yv.  7,  8).  In  the 
genuine  passage,  however,  the  sufferings  which  are  to  come 
upon  the  disciples  will  come  in  consequence  of  their  Chris- 
tian faith,  and  will  proceed  from  the  Jews  (yv,  9,  11-13). 


THE   PAROUSIA   AND   THE   JUDGMENT  157 

The  salvation  to  be  accomplished  is  different.  That  of  the 
apocalypse  is  salvation  from  temporal  calamity  —  depend- 
ing on  a  mitigation  of  the  severity  of  the  sufferings  (y.  20)  ; 
that  of  the  genuine  passage  is  salvation  from  eternal  de- 
struction—  depending  upon  steadfast  endurance  unto  death 
(v.  13).  (3)  The  two  passages  have  a  very  different  value. 
The  apocalypse  deals  only  with  external  calamities,  and 
presents  no  general  or  permanently  available  truth  which 
can  be  applied  to  the  Christian  life  apart  from  the  immedi- 
ate and  special  purpose  of  the  passage.  The  other  section 
is  religious  and  Christian,  and  it  is  possible  to  extract  from 
it  a  permanent  religious  significance  which  is  independent 
of  its  particular  application  to  the  circumstances  of  its 
time.^ 

To  this  separation  of  the  material  of  Mk.  xiii.  it  is  ob- 
jected, that  there  is  no  evidence  for  it ;  that  it  is  inherently 
improbable  that  Mark  should  take  an  independent  Jev/ish- 
Christian  writing  (commonly  supposed  to  emanate  from 
Jesus),  break  it  into  three  parts  and  interpolate  them  at 
various  points  into  his  genuine  source ;  and  that  the  apoca- 
lyptic elements  of  the  discourse  are  sufficiently  explained 
by  the  influence  of  Old  Testament  apocalyptic  and  proph- 
ecy which  furnished  the  symbols  in  which  Jesus  clothed 
his  thought.^  It  may  then  be  urged  that  incongruities  in 
the  discourse  may  best  be  referred  to  subjective  combina- 
tions and  misapprehensions  on  the  part  of  the  early  dis- 
ciples. Certainly  the  hypothesis  in  question  cannot  be 
established  with  certainty.  It  merits  consideration  as  a 
somewhat  plausible  conjecture,  but  cannot  be  shown  to  be 

1  Haupt,  Die  eschatologischen  Aussagen  Jesu,  p.  21  sg.,  expresses  his 
dissatisfaction  with  the  analysis  of  Wenclt  et  al..  and  holds  that  the  dis- 
course is  a  mosaic  of  small  fragments  —  sayings  originating  at  different 
times  and  on  various  occasions  which,  just  because  they  were  brought 
together  in  this  way,  have,  in  great  part,  taken  on  a  sense  essentially 
different  from  their  original  and  authentic  meaning. 

2  Cf.  V^eiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  §  33,  b ;  Beyschlag,  iV.V.  Theol.  I.  188  (Bk.  I. 
ch.  viii.  §  1):  "This  short  apocalypse  is  a  mere  production  of  the  criti- 
cal imagination " ;  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels^  p.  134:  "These  three 
sections  separated  by  Weiffenbach  are  apocalyptic  in  character  .  .  . 
because  they  all  depend  on  the  apocalypse'of  Daniel,"  etc.  Cf.  Salmond, 
Christian  Doctrine  of  Immortality,  p.  302. 


/ 


158  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

necessary  to  the  explanation  of  the  facts  for  which  it  seeks 
to  account.^ 

Before  considering  further  the  probable  original  import 
of  this  discourse,  we  must  notice  our  fourth  passage, 
which  occurs  in  connection  with  the  trial  of  Jesus  and  ap- 
pears in  all  the  Synoptics :  "  And  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of 
man  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  with 
the  clouds  of  heaven "  (Mk.  xiv.  62) ;  "  Henceforth  {air 
apTi)  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  at  the  right  hand 
of  power  and  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven  "  (Mt.  xxvi. 
64);  "  But  from  henceforth  (aTro  rov  vvv)  shall  the  Son  of 
man  be  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of  God" 
(Lk.  xxii.  69).  This  statement  is  made  in  answer  to  the 
high  priest's  question:  "Art  thou  the  Christ?"  Jesus 
replies  that  he  is,  and  in  language  resembling  that  of  Dan. 
vii.  13,  asserts  the  speedy  triumph  of  his  cause.  From  this 
very  time,  he  says,  —  from  this  moment  of  apparent  defeat, 
—  you  will  see  the  tokens  of  the  triumph  of  my  Kingdom. 
It  appears  to  me  impossible  to  refer  this  passage  to  a 
future  advent.  We  are  shut  up  to  one  of  two  supposi- 
tions :  either  that  Jesus  spoke  symbolically  of  his  coming 
on  the  clouds,  meaning  his  glorious  triumph  over  all  hos- 
tile powers,  or  that  tradition  has  cast  his  actual  thought 
into  that  form  because  it  was  supposed  that  he  spoke  on 
this  occasion  of  his  second  advent.  It  is  possible  to  hold 
both  that  Jesus  actually  used  the  words  in  question,  refer- 
ring to  the  triumph  of  his  Kingdom,  and  that  the  early 
disciples  referred  them  to  his  parousia.  The  one  thing 
that  is  clear  is,  that  they  did  not  actually  refer  to  the 
parousia,  whatever  their  original  form.  On  this  point  the 
limitation  of  time  involved  in  the  words  "ye  shall  see," 
the  idea  of  a  progressive  coming,  expressed  in  the  phrase, 
"from  now  on,"  the  whole  situation  in  which  the  passage 
belongs,  and  the  question  to  which  it  is  an  answer,  are  de- 
cisive. From  this  passage,  then,  we  may  confidently  draw 
a  conclusion  which  has  already  been  suggested  by  an  ex- 


1  A  judicious  article  entitled,  The  Apocahjptic  Teaching  of  our  Lord, 
I    by  the  Rev.  Henry  Kingman,  in  which  this  theory  is  carefully  considered, 
may  be  found  in  The  Biblical  World,  for  March,  1897. 


THE   PAROUSIA    AND   THE   JUDGMENT  159 

amination  of  Mk.  ix.  1,  and  the  parallels,  namely,  that 
Jesus  sometimes  spoke  of  the  coming  of  his  Kingdom  or 
of  his  coming  in  his  Kingdom  (probably  using  apocalyptic 
language  in  so  doing)  when  he  referred  to  the  progress  or 
triumph  of  his  cause,  and  that  there  was  a  strong  tendency 
in  the  minds  of  the  early  disciples  to  apply  all  such  language 
to  his  visible  return  in  glory  to  earth  to  consummate  his 
Kingdom.  This  conclusion  receives  strong  confirmation 
from  the  fourth  Gospel.^ 

These  considerations  will  be  quite  determining  for  the 
view  which  we  must  take  of  a  fifth  passage,  Lk.  xvii.  20- 
xviii.  8.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  this  collection  of 
sayings  originally  referred  to  a  visible  coming  of  Christ  to 
consummate  his  Kingdom  at  the  end  of  the  world,  because 

(1)  the  opening  verses  (20,  21)  express  quite  a  different, 
that  is,  a  spiritual,  idea  of  the  Kingdom  and  of  its  coming. 

(2)  Considerable  parts  of  this  matter  (vv.  23,  24,  26,  27, 
34-37)  are  found  in  substance  in  Matthew's  version  of  the 
eschatological  discourse  (xxiv.  26,  27,  37,  39,  40,  41,  28), 
and  we  have  seen  that  this  discourse  is  evidently  made  up 
of  diverse  elements  which  are  dominated  and  blended  by 
the  current  expectation  of  the  Lord's  visible  return  to  earth 
in  close  connection  with  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  state. 
A  similar  expectation  seems  to  have  shaped  the  composi- 
tion and  form  of  this  discourse.  (3)  The  parable  of  the 
Unjust  Judge  (xviii.  1-8),  which  expressly  purports  to 
teach  the  certainty  that  prayer  Avill  be  answered,  is  allego- 
rized by  Luke  and  applied  to  teach  watchfulness  in  view 
of  the  Lord's  second  coming.  We  therefore  see  in  this 
discourse  traces  of  the  tendency  to  apply  to  the  idea  of  a 
final  parousia  sayings  and  parables  whose  form  and  content 
do  not  naturally  yield  themselves  to  such  an  application. 
In  like  manner,  I  cannot  but  regard  it  as  improbable  that 
the  parable  of  the  Pounds  (Lk.  xix.  11-27)  or  Talents  (Mt. 
XXV.  14-29)  originally  referred  to  the  parousia.  It  seems 
to  have  been  applied  allegorically  to  this  subject  because 
the  parable-story  contains  the  idea  of  a  lord  returning  to  Ms 
servants.     This  idea  of  the  "coming"  is  incidental;  it  is 

1  See  my  Johannine  Theology,  pp.  3^9-340. 


160  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

not  the  point  of  the  parable.  The  same  remark  applies  to 
the  application  of  the  figure  of  the  absent  householder  in 
Lk.  xii.  35-48. 

A  candid  review  of  the  passages  appears  to  me  to  leave 
no  room  for  doubt  that  all  three  Synoptists  have  applied 
to  a  final  coming  sayings  of  Christ  which  could  not  have 
been  originally  intended  to  refer  to  that  event.  Exegesis 
must,  indeed,  maintain  that  the  passages  in  their  present 
form  relate  to  that  subject,  but  criticism  —  which  is  only 
a  name  for  a  more  comprehensive  estimate  of  the  facts  — 
cannot  regard  this  reference,  at  any  rate  in  most  instances, 
as  the  oriofinal  one.  On  examination  we  find  that  difficul- 
ties  in  the  way  of  this  application  are  not  peculiar  to  the 
relevant  passages  outside  the  great  eschatological  discourse. 
If  we  have  sufficient  reason  for  believing  that  Jesus  did 
not  predict  his  return  within  the  generation  living,  how 
can  we  conceive  him  as  instructing  his  hearers  to  watch 
and  be  ready  for  it  (Mk.  xiii.  37 ;  Mt.  xxv.  13)  ?  Would 
not  his  "  coming  "  for  which  they  all  should  be  ready,  and 
at  which  one  would  be  taken  and  the  other  left  (Mt.  xxiv. 
40)  be  more  naturally  understood  as  the  hour  of  death  ? 

Such  considerations  undoubtedly  suggest  the  question  : 
Does  anything,  then,  remain  on  which  we  can  with  any 
confidence  rely  as  a  source  of  Jesus'  teaching  concerning 
a  second  advent?  May  we  not  reduce  this  idea  of  the 
parousia,  as  some  have  sought  to  do,  to  that  of  a  process  or 
dispensation?  It  must  be  admitted  that  in  the  confused 
state  of  the  materials  bearing  upon  the  subject  it  is  possible 
—  not,  indeed,  by  exegesis,  but  by  historical  criticism  —  to 
maintain,  with  considerable  plausibility,  this  conclusion. 
I  cannot,  however,  adopt  it.  The  confusion  of  our  mate- 
rials does  not  warrant  us  in  concluding  that  Jesus  said 
nothing  on  this  subject  to  which  his  hearers  overdid  the 
application  of  his  language.  There  is  a  wide  difference 
between  misunderstandings  or  mistaken  combinations  of  his 
words  and  the  independent  creation  by  his  disciples  of  a 
doctrine  to  which  he  did  not  refer.  Moreover,  his  whole 
conception  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  implies  the  idea  of  its 
consummation,  of   which  he  might  naturally  speak  as    a 


THE  PAROUSIA  AND  THE  JUDGMENT       161 

special,  final  self-manifestation,  or  parousia.  Nor  does  it 
seem  to  me  that  we  could  reasonably  explain  the  promi- 
nent place  which  the  expectation  of  the  second  advent  had 
in  the  mind  of  the  early  Church  if  Jesus  had  been  wholly 
silent  on  the  subject.  That  it  should  have  been  over-em- 
phasized, that  it  should  have  been  regarded  as  near  at 
hand  and  surrounded  by  external  signs  and  wonders,  can 
be  historically  explained ;  but  that  it  was  created  ex  nihilo 
is  an  assumption  which  would  require  for  its  justification 
something  more  than  an  argument  derived  from  the  diffi- 
culty of  finding  a  clear  and  consistent  explanation  of  the 
perplexities  connected  with  the  passages  in  question. 

It  remains,  then,  to  estimate  the  probabilities  concerning 
the  great  eschatological  discourse.  These  appear  to  me  to 
be  as  follows : 

(1)  The  first  part  of  the  discourse,  as  we  have  it,  was 
concerned  with  the  question  as  to  the  signs  and  the  time 
of  Jerusalem's  overthrow ;  but  with  this  material  is  blended 
a  group  of  sayings,  some  of  which  probably  referred  to  the 
manifestation  or  parousia  of  the  Son  of  man  at  the  end  of 
the  age.  The  general  division  between  these  two  groups 
of  sayings  may  be  traced  at  Mk.  xiii.  24;  Mt.  xxiv.  29; 
Lk.  xxi.  25.  Matthew  has  indeed  obliterated  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  two,  and  in  Mark  and  Luke  it  is  obscured. 

(2)  This  obscuration  or  obliteration  is  due  to  the  per- 
sistent expectation  of  the  early  disciples  that  the  Kingdom 
of  Christ  would  be  speedily  consummated  by  a  great  crisis. 
Under  the  power  of  this  idea  of  the  Kingdom  and  its  tri- 
umph, they  were  naturally  impelled  to  blend  together  say- 
ings that  belonged  apart,  and  to  identify  prophecies  of  the 
consummation  with  those  of  impending  calamities.  That 
their  conception  of  the  Kingdom  was  such  as  to  warrant 
this  supposition  is  abundantly  evident  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment (see  e.g.^  Lk.  xix.  11 ;  xxiv.  21;  Acts  i.  6). 

(3)  Jesus  spoke  of  various  "comings,"  referring,  as 
occasion  required,  to  the  progress  of  his  Kingdom,  to  crises 
in  its  advance,  or  to  its  consummation.  His  whole  doc- 
trine of  the  nature  of  his  Kingdom,  as  well  as  a  critical 
consideration  of  the  relevant  passages,  justifies  this  conclu- 


162  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

sion.  He  did  not  conceive  of  his  Kingdom  as  triumphing 
by  a  sudden  and  near  catastrophe.  It  was  not  to  come 
"  with  observation  "  (Lk.  xvii.  20)  ;  it  was  to  be  like  leaven 
spreading  (Mt.  xiii.  33),  like  seed  growing  secretly,  "first 
the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear  (]Mk. 
iv.  28).  Its  coming  was  conceived  of  as  a  great  historic 
world-process  (Mt.  xxi.  43).  In  the  very  midst  of  words 
that  have  been  shaped  into  a  prediction  of  Christ's  return 
within  the  generation  then  living,  we  meet  with  the  decla- 
ration that  his  gospel  shall  first  be  proclaimed  to  the  whole 
world  (Mt.  xxiv.  14).  Jesus  spoke  of  various  "days  of 
the  Son  of  man  "  (Lk.  xvii.  22),  epochs  in  a  great  continu- 
ous process,  culminating  in  the  final  manifestation,  with 
which  the  first  disciples  more  or  less  especially  identified 
all  others.^ 

(4)  To  determine  precisely  the  form  of  Jesus'  teaching 
concerning  his  parousia  and  the  consummation  is  not  pos- 
sible in  the  present  state  of  our  sources.  He  probably 
employed  symbolic  language  similar  to  that  which  we  find 
in  the  apocalyptic  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  If  the 
first  disciples  commonly  gave  a  literal  interpretation  to 
this  language,  we  shall  now  do  better  to  follow  the  exam- 
ple of  Peter,  who  saw  Joel's  prophecy  of  dread  portents 
in  earth  and  sky  fulfilled  in  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  at 
Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  16  sq.}.  It  would  be  only  a  popular 
Jewish  reading  of  prophecy  which  could  lead  us  to  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  meant  to  consummate  his  Kingdom  with 
an  accompaniment  of  convulsions  and  catastrophes.  The 
"  logic  of  events,"  during  many  centuries,  may  safely  be 
held  to  teach  us  something  as  to  what  Jesus  meant  by 
coming  in  his  Kingdom.  I  believe  the  analogy  of  his 
general  teaching  accords  with  the  historical  facts  in  show- 
ing that  he  anticipated  a  great  process  of  conquest,  marked 
by  special  crises,  and  issuing  in  a  final  victory  when  he 
should  appear  as  the  glorious  Leader  and  King  of  man- 

'■  1  That  Jesus'  genercal  doctrine  of  the  nature  and  progress  of  his  King- 
dom should  guide  us  in  the  effort  to  determine  what  he  taught  concerning 
its  consummation,  is  one  of  the  leading  principles  of  the  excellent  discus- 
sion of  Haupt  in  his  work  entitled  Die  eschatologischen  Aussagen  Jesu. 


THE   PAROUSIA   AND    THE   JUDGMENT  163 

kind  —  the  triumphant  Founder  and  Perfecter  of  the 
Kingdom  of  a  redeemed  humanity. 

The  principle  of  judgment  is  repeatedly  recognized  in 
the  teachino'  of  Jesus.     But  in  connection  with  this  sub- 

o 

ject  we  encounter  a  difficulty  analogous  to  that  which  we 
found  when  studying  the  parousia.  The  divine  judgment 
is  presented  now  as  a  process,  and  now  as  a  final  crisis, 
and  it  is  impossible  to  determine  with  confidence  to  which 
of  these  certain  passages  were  intended  to  refer.  We  shall 
find  reasons  for  suspecting  that  the  eschatological  concep- 
tion of  this  subject  (as  with  respect  to  the  parousia)  was 
so  dominant  in  the  minds  of  the  first  disciples  that  some 
sayings  which  seem  more  naturally  to  express  the  princi- 
ple of  judgment  are  treated  as  if  they  referred  to  the  "  day 
of  judgment "  at  the  end  of  the  present  world-period. 

In  the  passage:  "Every  one  who  is  angry  with  his 
brother  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment "  (Mt.  v.  22), 
the  reference  is  probably  to  the  local  court,  which  here 
stands  as  a  symbol  of  temporal  divine  judgment.  The 
passage  beginning:  "Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me. 
Lord,  Lord"  (Mt.  vii.  21-23),  is  referred  to  the  day  of 
judgment  by  Matthew  —  an  application  which  is  rendered 
doubtful  both  by  the  context  and  by  the  use  made  of  it 
by  Luke  (xiii.  25-27).  The  first  evangelist  shows  the 
same  tendency  to  connect  all  references  to  the  principle  of 
judgment  with  a  final  "  day  "  as  he  does  to  refer  all  Christ's 
"  comings  "  to  a  crisis  at  the  end  of  the  age.  In  reporting 
the  discourse  upon  the  responsibility  of  men  for  their 
words  and  deeds  (xii.  33  sq.')^  he  adds  that  for  every  idle 
word  they  shall  give  account  in  the  day  of  judgment,  and 
that  by  their  words  they  shall  be  justified  or  condemned 
(xii.  36,  37).  Luke  reports  the  same  sayings  (vi.  43-45), 
but  without  this  eschatological  application. 

jMatthew  has  appended  to  the  parousia-discourse  which 
we  have  been  considering  a  judgment-programme,  in  which 
all  the  nations  are  represented  as  appearing  before  the 
Son  of  man,  who  separates  them  into  two  classes  and  pro- 
nounces their  doom  (xxv.  31-46).  Since  this  passage  is 
peculiar  to  Matthew,  and  in  view  of  his  handling  of  escha- 


164  THE   SYNOPTIC   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

tological  materials  wliicli  we  have  already  observed,  it  is 
difficult  to  determine  the  probable  import  of  this  highly 
pictorial  description.  Accordingly,  interpreters  are  much 
divided  in  their  judgment  of  its  intention.  Some  {e.cj, 
Meyer  and  Weiss  i)  hold  that  it  is  a  picture  of  the  judgment 
of  professing  Christians,  on  the  ground  that  those  who  are 
gathered  before  the  Judge  are  spoken  of  as  his  "brethren" 
{yv.  40,  45),  that  is,  professed  disciples,  and  that  the 
terms  applied  to  the  accepted  ones  {yv.  34,  37)  naturally 
designate  Christians.  Others  (as'  Bruce  and  Wendt^) 
maintain  that  it  is  a  description  of  the  judgment  of  the 
heathen.  They  understand  the  phrase  "all  the  nations" 
{irdvTa  TCL  edvT],  v.  32),  in  the  specific  sense,  "  the  Gen- 
tiles," and  point  out  the  fact  that  those  who  are  judged 
are  expressly  distinguished  from  the  "brethi-en"  of  Jesus, 
that  is,  from  believers;  and  also  that  the  significance  of 
their  good  or  evil  acts  is  represented  as  not  known  to 
them  when  they  performed  them  (^vv.  37,  44).  Those  who 
take  this  view  appeal  to  passages  like  Mt.  x.  40-42  and 
Lk.  X.  12-16  in  confirmation  of  it,  and  point  out  that 
those  who  have  known  Christ  are  represented  as  judged 
by  their  confession  or  denial  of  him  (Mt.  x.  32,  33). 
Beyschlag  holds  that  the  passage,  in  its  original  meaning, 
was  intended  to  describe  a  certain  aspect  of  the  divine 
judgment.  "It  is  a  peculiarly  magnificent  expression  of 
the  idea  more  briefly  expressed  in  Mt.  x.  42  " :  "  And  who- 
soever shall  give  to  drink  unto  one  of  these  little  ones  a 
cup  of  cold  water  only,  in  the  name  of  a  disciple,  verily  I 
say  unto  you,  he  shall  in  nowise  lose  his  reward."  ^ 

The  common  view  is  that  the  passage  describes  the  gen- 
eral judgment  of  mankind.  The  way  in  which  the  scene 
is  connected  with  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  and  the 
language  which  is  applied  to  both  the  accepted  and  the 
rejected  (34  5,  37,  41  5),  strongly  favor  this  view.  Indeed, 
Weiss,  Wendt,  and  Beyschlag  all  admit  that  the  passage 
was  understood  by  the  evangelist  to  describe  the  general 

1  Commentary,  in  loco,  and  Bibl.  Tlieol.  §  33,  d,  note  6. 

2  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  315  sq. ;  Lehre  Jesu,  pp.  186-188. 

3  iY.  T.  Theol.  I.  206  (Bk.  I.  ch.  viii.  §  9), 


THE  PAROUSIA  AND  THE  JUDGMENT       165 

judgment  of  the  world  at  the  end  of  time.  But  the  diffi- 
culties of  this  view  are  very  great.  How  can  we  harmo- 
nize with  Jesus'  general  teaching  the  idea  that  the  eternal 
destiny  of  all  men  is  decided  by  works  of  charity  alone  ? 
But  the  theories  which  apply  the  description  to  the  judg- 
ment of  a  special  class  are  hardly  more  satisfactory.  How 
are  the  heathen,  as  such,  to  be  conceived  of  as  having  had, 
in  all  cases,  such  relations  to  Christ's  '^  brethren  "  as  the 
passage  presupposes?  Both  this  explanation  and  that 
which  applies  it  to  the  judgment  of  Christians  only  are 
compelled  to  suppose  that  the  evangelist  has  amplified  the 
original  sayings  of  Christ  and  given  them  a  general, 
instead  of  a  special,  application.  In  view  of  all  the  con- 
siderations which  bear  upon  the  subject,  I  regard  it  as 
extremely  doubtful  whether  we  can  legitimately  claim  that 
this  passage  is  more  than  a  pictorial  exposition  of  a  princi- 
ple of  the  divine  judgment,  namely,  that  even  small  deeds 
of  service,  done  from  love,  are  approved  by  Christ,  while 
their  neglect  is  condemned.  In  this  view,  it  would  be  an 
impressive  picture  of  man's  relation  to  his  deeds,  empha- 
sizing the  significance  of  his  works  as  show^ing  the  state 
of  his  heart  and  his  real  relations  to  God,  as  elsewhere 
Jesus  declares  the  decisive  import  of  man's  words  (Mt. 
xii.  36,  37),  because  they  are  the  expression  of  his  inner 
life  (xii.  34,  35). 

The  conclusion  respecting  the  doctrine  of  judgment 
must  be  similar  to  that  which  we  reached  in  regard  to 
that  of  the  parousia.  A  principle  or  process  of  judgment 
is  recognized,  but  this  process  is  conceived  of  as  culmi- 
nating in  a  crisis  at  the  end  of  the  present  world-period. 
This  view  is  strongly  confirmed  by  the  representations  of 
the  fourth  Gospel.^  But  a  candid  criticism  must  admit 
that  it  is  almost  as  difficult  to  be  sure  of  the  exact  words 
of  Jesus  respecting  the  "  day  of  judgment "  as  it  is  to 
determine  what  he  said  concerning  his  second  advent. 

Respecting  the  method  or  issues  of  judgment,  those  will 
be  least  disposed  to  dogmatize  who  have  fully  considered 
the  perplexities  which  a  critical  handling  of  the  sources 
1  See  my  Johannine  Theology^  pp.  349-354. 


166  THE   SYNOPTIC    TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

involves.  The  references  to  the  undying  worm  and  the 
unquenchable  fire  certainly  suggest  the  finality  of  the 
issues  of  the  judgment,  provided  one  feels  confident  that 
they  were  meant  to  refer  to  that  event  (see  Mk.  ix.  47, 
48 ;  cf.  Mt.  V.  29,  80).  The  most  emphatic  declaration  of 
such  a  final  issue  of  judgment  is  Mt.  xxv.  46 :  "  These 
shall  go  into  eternal  punishment;  but  the  righteous  into 
eternal  life."  One's  view  as  to  the  probable  originality  of 
this  passage  will,  however,  depend  upon  the  theory  which 
he  adopts  respecting  the  primary  intent  of  the  judgment- 
scene  as  a  whole.^ 

Jesus  assured  his  disciples  of  a  resurrection  and  of  a 
blessed  life  in  heaven.  They  shall  be,  he  said,  "  as  angels 
in  heaven"  (Mk.  xii.  25);  "accounted  worthy  to  attain 
to  that  world,  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  "  being 
"sons  of  God,  sons  of  the  resurrection"  (Lk.  xx.  35,  36). 
Their  good  deeds  shall  be  "  recompensed  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  just"  (Lk.  xiv.  14).  From  these  passages 
many  scholars  infer  that  unbelievers  are  not  to  share,  in 
any  sense,  in  a  resurrection ;  ^  but  this  is  a  precarious 
argumentum  e  silentio  (cf.  Mk.  xii.  26;  John  v.  29;  Acts 
xxiv.  15).  Jesus  did  not  think  of  Hades  as  a  realm  of 
unconsciousness,  but  of  activity,  and  therefore  had  no 
special  motive  to  touch  upon  the  question,  discussed  by 
the  Jews,  whether  all,  or  only  some,  should  be  awakened 
from  the  sleep  of  death.  Moreover,  when  he  speaks  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  pious,  he  lays  no  special  emphasis  upon 
the  corporeal  aspect  of  it,  but  conceives  of  it  as  the  per- 
fecting of  the  life  in  all  that  concerns  its  divine  destiny 
(Mk.  xii.  24-27).  That  a  resurrection  in  this  sense  is 
promised  to  the  righteous  only,  does  not  in  the  least  prove 
that  others  continue  without  bodily  form,  or  that  they 
abide  in  an  unconscious  existence,  or  cease  to  be.^ 

1  Wendt,  Lelire  Jesu^  p.  188,  Weiss,  3fatthdusev.,  p.  540,  and  Holtz- 
mann,  Handcommentar,  in  loco,  regard  this  verse  as  an  addition  by  the 
evangelist.  It  is  held  to  be  an  amplification  of  Mt.  xvi.  27,  in  agreement 
with  the  idea  of  Dan.  xii.  2, 

2  So  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  §  34,  d;  Beyschlag,  N.  T.  TheoL  I.  211 
(Bk.  I.  ch.  viii.  §  11). 

2  Cf.  Salmond,  Christian  Doctrine  of  Immortality,  p.  336  sq. 


PART   II 

THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS   ACCORDING  TO 
THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTORY 

With  respect  to  the  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
three  views  are  now  current.  (1)  Tlie  representatives  of 
the  so-called  liberal  school  in  Germany  hold  that  it  is 
spurious.  It  is  the  product  of  a  Hellenizing  type  of 
thought  which  was  rife  in  the  second  century.  It  is  a 
construction  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  in  accordance 
with  certain  forms  of  speculative  thought,  and  is  therefore 
untrustworthy  as  a  source  of  historical  information  or  of 
doctrinal  teaching.  It  is  a  species  of  historical  romance 
dominated  by  the  neo-Platonic  idea  of  the  Logos,  or  Reason, 
which  the  author  identifies  with  the  preexistent  Christ. 
''  The  fourth  Gospel  is  only  estimated  rightly  when  it  is 
considered  to  be  a  product  of  philosophical  poetizing,  with 
a  religious  tendency,  emanating  from  the  third  Christian 
generation.  As  a  source  for  the  history  of  Christ  in  the 
ilesh  it  is  almost  worthless."  ^ 

(2)  A  series  of  attempts  has  been  made  to  show  that 
the  Gospel,  although  not  written  by  the  apostle  John,  was 
mainly  composed  of  genuine  Johannine  memoranda,  in 
very  much  the  same  way  as  the  first  Gospel  embodied  the 
Logia.  *  Weizsacker  assigned  it  to  a  disciple  of  John  who 
was  supposed,  however,  to  have  based  his  work  upon  apos- 
tolic traditions.2    To  this  view  Hase,  who  had  long  defended 

1  Juliclier,  Einleitung  in  d.  N.  T.,  pp.  258,  259. 

2  Untersuchungen  ilber  die  evangelische  Geschichte,  Gotha,  1864. 

167 


168  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

the  genuineness  of  the  gospel,  gave  his  assent  in  his 
Geschichte  Jesu  (Leipzig,  1876).  The  most  conspicuous 
adherent  of  this  mediating  theory  at  present  is  Wendt  who 
has  elaborated  it  in  detail  and  in  a  somewhat  different  form 
from  his  predecessors.^  He  holds  that  the  evangelist 
possessed  and  used  a  series  of  genuine  memoranda  of  the 
Lord's  words,  prefaced  by  brief  historical  introductions, 
which  he  edited  and  supplemented.  These  genuine  Logia 
related  mainly  to  the  later  period  of  Jesus'  ministry,  but 
were  so  distributed  by  the  editor  as  to  cover  his  whole 
public  life.  They  were  preceded  by  the  prologue  in  sub- 
stantially the  form  in  which  we  have  it.  The  principal 
grounds  of  this  hypothesis  are  as  follows :  (a)  The  natural 
course  of  thought  is  often  interrupted  by  parentheses 
which  are  most  naturally  referred  to  a  redactor;  e.g.  i.  15 
interrupts  the  connection  between  vv.  14  and  16 ;  xiii.  18, 
19  breaks  the  connection  between  xiii.  12-17  and  xiii.  20. 
(5)  The  discourses  and  the  historical  framework  of  the 
gospel  exhibit  a  different  cast  of  ideas.  The  former 
emphasize  Jesus'  miracles  as  the  "signs"  of  his  messiah- 
ship ;  the  latter  his  words  and  works,  (c?)  Certain  events 
are  placed  in  the  early  part  of  his  ministry  which  our 
Synoptic  sources  refer  to  its  later  stages,  e.g.  the  cleansing 
of  the  Temple  (^cf.  ii.  13  sq.  with  Mk.  xi.  15  sq.')  and  the 
assertion  of  his  Messianic  claims.  Wendt  holds  that  this 
Johannine  material  must  be  separated  from  the  later  addi- 
tions by  a  critical  process,  but  that  when  this  is  done,  it  is 
found  to  "furnish  a  subject-matter  quite  in  harmony  with 
the  contents  of  Jesus'  teaching  as  attested  by  the  other 
sources."  The  opponents  of  thfs  view  commonly  urge 
against  it  two  principal  considerations,  first,  the  testimony 
of  the  book  itself  to  its  production  by  an  eye-witness  (xix. 
35 ;  xxi.  24),  and,  second,  the  completeness  of  its  literary 
plan  and  execution  and  its  marked  sameness  of  style 
throughout. 

(3)  The  third  view  is  the  traditional  one  that  the  Gos- 
pel was  written  by  the   apostle  John.      I  can  hardly  do 

1  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  pp.  215-342 ;  cf.   The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  I.  22-28 
(orig.  pp.  0-10). 


INTEODUCTORY  169 

more  than  to  indicate  the  present  state  of  the  question. 
For  its  discussion  in  detail  I  must  refer  the  student  to  the 
standard  works  on  New  Testament  Introduction,  and  to 
the  many  special  treatises  which  the  investigation  of  the 
problem  has  called  forth.^  It  must  suffice  to  point  out 
that  the  objections  to  the  genuineness  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel proceed  mainly  from  theoretic  and  internal  consid- 
erations, while  the  opposite  view,  which  also  appeals  to 
internal  evidence,  supports  its  claim  by  reference  to  a  line 
of  witnesses  which  reaches  back  almost  to  the  very  verge 
of  the  apostolic  age.  Those  who  hold  the  apostolic  author- 
ship urge  that  the  fourth  Gospel  bears  every  mark  of  a 
historical  narrative ;  it  is  not  merely  interested  in  certain 
disembodied  ideas  ;  it  deals  in  a  multitude  of  facts  and 
detailed  narrations.  In  some  details  it  seems  to  be  more 
accurate  than  the  Synoptics  and  to  be  indirectly  confirmed 
b}^  them.  The  claim  that  the  book  reflects  the  Gnostic 
controversies  of  the  second  century  is  not  warranted  by  a 
sound  exegesis  of  the  text.  It  is  from  the  same  hand  as 
1  John,  whose  attestation  is  ample.  The  twenty-first 
chapter  is  probably  an  addition  by  a  later  writer,  who  in 
the  name  of  a  number  of  persons  strongly  attests  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospel  (xxi.  24).  The  external  evi- 
dence of  the  apostolic  authorship  is  abundant,  and  has 
been  materially  increased  by  the  discoveries  of  recent 
years.  The  negative  school  long  disputed  certain  alleged 
correspondences  between  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  im- 
perfect text  of  the  Clementine  Homilies ;  but  when  in 
1853  Dressel  published  a  complete  manuscript  of  these 
writings,  which  had  recently  been  discovered  in  the  Otto- 
bonian  library  in  Rome,  there  was  found  in  the  long  lost 
portion  an  unquestionable  reference  to  the  story  of  the 
man  born  blind.^  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles, 
which  probably  dates  from  the  early  years  of  the  second 
century,  seems  to  me  to  bear  traces  of  the  influence  of  the 
fourth  Gospel.     The  same  may  be  claimed  respecting  the 

1  Ample  references  will  be  found  in  Vincent's  Studenfs  New  Testa- 
ment Handbook  (1893),  pp.  61-68. 

2  Horn.  XIX.  ch.  xxii.  ;  c/.  John  ix.  2,  3. 


170  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

so-called  G-ospel  of  Petei\  which  was  discovered  at  Akhmim 
in  Egypt  in  1886-87,  and  is  believed  to  date  from  about 
165  A.D.  On  this  subject  one  of  the  most  competent 
specialists  who  has  studied  it  says  :  "  The  unmistakable 
acquaintance  of  the  author  with  our  four  evangelists  de- 
serves a  special  comment.  He  uses  and  misuses  each  in 
turn.  To  him  they  all  stand  on  an  equal  footing.  He 
lends  no  support  to  the  attempt  which  has  been  made  to 
place  a  gulf  of  separation  between  the  fourth  Gospel  and 
the  rest,  as  regards  the  period  or  area  of  their  acceptance 
as  canonical."  ^ 

But  perhaps  the  most  notable  addition  which  has  re- 
cently been  made  to  the  external  evidence  for  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospel  is  that  afforded  by  the  discovery  of  the 
Diatessaron  of  Tatian.  This  man  was  an  Assyrian  by 
birth  and  a  hearer  of  Justin  Martyr,  and  flourished  about 
155-170  A.D.  His  earlier  life  was  spent  in  Rome  ;  later,  he 
lived  in  the  East,  especially  in  Syria.  In  his  Addj^ess  to 
the  Grreeks  there  were  several  apparent  verbal  coincidences 
with  the  fourth  Gospel  which  gave  rise  to  the  conjecture 
that  if  his  lost  Diatessaron,  or  Harmony  of  the  Gospels, 
could  be  discovered,  it  would  be  found  to  contain  the 
fourth  Gospel.  A  certain  writer  of  the  twelfth  century, 
Dionysius  Bar-Silibi,  states  that  the  Diatessaron  began 
with  the  words:  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word."  This 
testimony  was  rejected  by  the  negative  criticism.  But 
when  at  length  in  1886  a  complete  Arabic  manuscript  of 
the  Diatessaron  was  brought  from  Egypt  to  Rome,  it  was 
found  that  Dionysius  was  correct,  and  that  the  work  em- 
bodied all  four  Gospels.  This  discovery  shows  that  the 
fourth  Gospel  was  accepted  without  question  as  apostolic 
among  the  Syrian  churches,  where  Tatian  spent  his  later 
life,  about  the  year  160  or  165  a.d.^  These  are  but  exam- 
ples of  recent  additions  to  the  testimon}^  All  things  con- 
sidered, the    genuineness  of  the  fourth    Gospel  is  amply 

1  Professor  J,  Armitage  Robinson,  in  his  edition  of  the  Gospel  of 
Peter,  p.  33. 

2  The  Diatessaron  is  published  in  English  with  full  introduction  and 
notes  by  J.  Hamlyn  Hill.     Edinburgh,  1894. 


INTRODUCTORY  171 

attested,  and  internal  considerations  favorable  to  the 
Joliannine  authorship  may  be  adduced  which  are,  to  say 
the  least,  as  strong  as  the  objections  which  are  urged  on 
the  other  side.^ 

But  just  here  there  arises  for  the  advocates  of  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  Gospel  a  very  important  and  difficult  ques- 
tion :  How  far  is  it  historically  trustworthy  ?  What  is  its 
value  as  a  source  of  information  compared  with  that  of 
the  Synoptic  tradition?  This  question  is  forced  upon  us 
by  the  formal  and  material  differences  which  exist  between 
the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  other  three. 

The  Synoptic  discourses  are  full  of  vivid  popular  ima- 
gery, striking  comparisons,  and  sententious  sayings  ;  those 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  are  elaborate,  elevated,  and  subtle  in 
style  and  tone,  often  rising  to  heights  of  sublime  mystery. 
Nor  is  this  difference  merely  one  of  language.  There  is 
a  difference  in  emphasis  and  contents  as  well.  The  large 
place  filled  by  the  parables  in  the  Synoptics  is  but  par- 
tially taken  by  the  allegories  of  John.  The  Christ  of  the 
Synoptics  speaks  less  of  himself ;  he  offers  his  truth  and 
Kingdom  for  men's  acceptance.  In  the  fourth  Gospel, 
however,  his  person  is  presented  as  absolutely  central; 
he  is  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  bond  which 
unites  earth  and  heaven.  Instead  of  the  parousia  Avith  its 
accompanying  signs  and  wonders,  we  read  in  John  of  the 
coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  after  Jesus'  departure  from 
earth.  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  the  keynote  of  the  Synop- 
tics ;  the  nature  and  prerogatives  of  the  Son  of  God  the 
keynote  in  John.  The  first  three  Gospels  speak  more 
of  the  general  fatherhood  of  God ;  the  fourth  speaks 
more  of  a  special  fatherhood,  denoting  a  relation  Avhich 
God  sustains  to  his  divine  and  eternal  Son.  The  thought 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  has,  for  the  most  part,  left  the  lower, 
concrete  world  of  Jewish  speech,  custom,  and  tradition  and 
entered  the  higher  world  of  eternal,  spiritual  realities. 

1  On  the  internal  evidence,  see  President  Dwight  in  Godet's  Commen- 
tary on  the  Gospel  of  John  (Am.  ed.),  Vol.  I. ;  Bishop  Lightfoot  in 
Biblical  Essays,  London  and  New  York,  1893,  and  Dr.  A.  P.  Peabody  in 
the  volume  entitled  The  Fourth  Gospel,  New  York,  1892. 


172  THE   JOHANNINE  TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

What  are  we  to  make  of  these  differences?  How  are 
they  to  be  explained?  If  what  we  have  seen  reason  to 
believe  respecting  the  origin  and  character  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  be  true,  we  cannot  suppose  that  Jesus  delivered 
the  Johannine  discourses  in  the  form  in  which  they  are 
preserved  to  us.  Jesus  cannot  have  had,  at  the  same  time, 
the  style  and  method  of  teaching  which  the  Synoptists 
describe  and  that  which  the  fourth  Gospel  reflects.  We 
must,  therefore,  attribute  the  language,  the  color,  and  the 
form  of  these  Johannine  discourses  to  the  evangelist. 
The  Gospel  of  John  is  a  distillation  of  the  life  and  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  from  the  alembic  of  the  apostle's  own  mind. 
It  is  his  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  Christ's  words, 
deeds,  and  person,  derived  from  intimate  personal  relations 
with  him  and  colored  and  shaped  by  a  long  life  of  Chris- 
tian thought  and  experience.  It  is,  therefore,  less  of  the 
nature  of  a  mere  report  or  chronicle  than  the  Synoptic 
tradition ;  it  is  rather  a  version,  a  free  rendering,  a  para- 
phrase of  what  Christ  had  imparted  to  one  who  had  made 
his  teaching  so  completely  his  own  that  it  had  become 
fused  and  blended  with  his  own  thought  and  life. 

But  it  may  be  asked:  If  such  a  subjective  element  is 
admitted,  does  it  not  impair  the  historical  trustworthiness 
of  the  Gospel?  To  this  question  we  may  reply:  If  it  were 
necessary  or  possible  to  recover  the  very  words  which 
Jesus  spoke,  such  an  interpretation  as  the  fourth  Gospel 
presents  would  be  subject  to  some  serious  disadvantages 
in  comparison  with  a  verbal  report.  But  this  is  neither 
necessary  nor  possible.  He  spoke  a  different  language  from 
that  in  which  our  Gospels  are  written.  We  have  seen  good 
reasons  for  believing  that  the  Synoptics  also  contain  very 
considerable  subjective  elements  and  combinations  which 
give  rise  to  many  perplexing  problems  of  literary  criticism. 
For  years  the  words  of  Jesus  were  written  only  on  the 
hearts  of  his  disciples.  The  phenomena  of  the  Synoptics 
justify  the  assumption  that  they  have  preserved  to  us  his 
general  style  of  speaking  —  his  method  and  forms  of 
thought.  But  the  first  three  Gospels  are  not  reportorial 
reproductions  of  his  very  words.     That  which  our  gospel 


INTRODUCTORY  173 

tradition,  in  all  its  forms,  reproducss  is  what  Jesus  was 
understood  to  say.  There  is  a  subjective  element  in  all 
testimony  through  which  the  living  teacher  is  interpreted 
without  the  intervention  of  such  appliances  for  the  precise 
reproduction  of  his  words  as  belong  only  to  modern  times.^ 
The  trustworthiness  of  testimony  depends  upon  the  degree 
of  correctness  with  which  the  essential  substance  of  a 
speaker's  real  meaning  is  apprehended. 

It  does  not,  therefore,  follow  that  because  the  fourth 
Gospel  contains  a  large  subjective  factor,  it  is  less  true  or 
trustworthy  than  the  Synoptics  as  a  source  for  the  knowl- 
edge of  Christ.  The  apostle's  reflections  may  have  trans- 
formed some  words  of  Jesus  into  something  different  from 
what  they  originally  signified,^  but  so  far  as  we  have  any 
means  of  judging,  the  fourth  Gospel  compares  favorably 
with  the  Synoptics  in  this  respect.  The  book  is,  indeed, 
limited  by  its  plan,  but  it  is  penetrated  by  a  keen  historic 
interest,  and  bears  all  the  marks  of  a  faithful  portrayal  of 
the  essence  and  import  of  our  Lord's  words  and  deeds. 
It  does  not  have  the  tone  of  a  romance.  It  is  not  domi- 
nated by  an  abstract  idea  of  the  Logos,  but  by  the  historic 
idea  that  the  true  Word  of  God  had  appeared  among  men 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  John's  version  of  the  sayings 
of  Christ  is  doubtless,  verbally  considered,  more  remote 
than  that  of  the  Synoptists  from  their  original  form,  but  it 
is  not  on  that  account  less  true  to  their  real  significance. 
His  individuality  had  colored  and  shaped,  through  a  long 
life  of  reflection,  the  form  of  his  Master's  instructions,  but 
it  had  not  distorted  or  misapplied  them.  His  mystical  and 
intense  nature  had  penetrated  into  what  was  deepest  in  the 
gospel  5  and  he  presents  it  not  in  a  stereotyped  form,  but  in 
a  living  apprehension  of  its  soul  of  truth.  Many  lessons 
of  Christ  which  the  disciples  had  not  understood  when 
they  were  spoken  —  such  as  his  teaching  concerning  the 

1  "  No  line  is  possible  between  what  has  come  to  men  and  their  inter- 
pretations of  what  has  come  to  them."  F.  J.  A.  Hort,  The  Waij^  the 
Truth,  and  the  Life,  1894,  p.  175. 

2  In  the  judgment  of  many,  examples  are  found  in  ii.  19-22  and  xii. 
32,  33. 


174  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

true  nature  of  the  Kingdom,  tlie  destination  of  tlie  gospel, 
and  the  obduracy  of  Israel  —  had  now  become  plain.  The 
promise  of  the  guiding,  interpreting  Spirit  had  been  more 
completely  fulfilled  than  in  the  earlier  days  of  the  apostolic 
Church.  The  "  things  of  Christ  "  had  been  wonderfully 
disclosed  to  the  apostle,  not  in  a  mere  outward  way,  but 
by  such  a  spiritual  illumination  of  their  meaning  that  the 
outer  word  had  become  an  inner  word  through  a  living 
appropriation.  Why  may  not  the  mind  and  meaning  of 
Christ  be  as  faithfully  represented  by  such  a  man  and  in 
such  a  way  as  by  a  formally  accurate  chronicle  of  his 
sayings  ?  This  method  of  reproduction  has,  of  course,  its 
limitations  and  its  liability  to  errors  and  omissions.  To 
what  extent  the  apostle  sharply  distinguished,  in  his  own 
consciousness,  the  teaching  of  Jesus  from  his  own  doc- 
trinal reflections  it  is  impossible  to  say.  In  any  case,  the 
objective  was  also  for  him  subjective.  Jesus'  teaching,  as 
he  understood  it,  was  part  and  parcel  of  his  own  faith  and 
life ;  and  thus  the  fourth  Gospel  is  at  once  the  mind  of 
the  apostle  and  "  the  heart  of  Christ."  ^ 

The  problems  upon  which  I  have  been  commenting  are 
questions  of  historical  criticism,  rather  than  of  Biblical 
Theology ;  but  it  has  been  necessary  to  touch  upon  them 
and  to  indicate  my  view  of  them,  because  they  have  an 
important  bearing  not  only  upon  one's  estimate  of  the 
value  of  the  Gospel  as  a  source  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
but  also  upon  the  way  in  which  its  materials  are  to  be 
distributed  and  employed  in  New  Testament  Theology. 
For  example,  Wendt's  mediating  view  respecting  the 
authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel  determines  his  peculiar 
use  of  it.2  He  regards  the  substance  of  the  book,  espe- 
cially that  of  the  discourses,  as  consisting  of  genuine 
apostolic  memoranda,  and  therefore  as  a  valuable  second- 
ary source  for  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  He  accordingly 
uses  such  materials  as  criticism  approves,  appending  to 

1  The  view  of  this  subject  which  I  have  here  presented  will  be  found, 
with  variations  in  form  and  emphasis,  in  the  writings  of  Weiss,  Sanday, 
Beyschlag,  Bovon  et  al. 

2  In  The  Teaching  of  Jesus. 


IXTllODUCTORY  175 

the  Synoptic  representation  of  each  doctrine  its  Johan- 
nine  counterpart.  Tliis  use  of  the  materials  implies,  of 
course,  an  attempt  at  separating  the  genuine  elements 
from  the  additions  of  the  supposed  editor. 

Those  who  regard  the  Gospel  as  "the  romance  of  the 
Logos,"  or,  at  any  rate,  as  a  creation  of  post-apostolic  spec- 
ulation, naturally  treat  all  its  contents  as  a  product  of  the 
author's  own  theoretic  construction  of  the  life  of  Christ. 
On  this  theory  no  distinction  will  be  made  between  the 
discourses  and  the  doctrinal  comments  of  the  evangelist. 
All  is  equally  the  author's  own.  This  method  of  treating 
the  materials  of  the  book  does  not,  however,  necessarily 
proceed  upon  the  presuppositions  which  I  have  just  men- 
tioned. It  possesses,  on  its  own  account,  some  important 
advantages  and  is  sometimes  followed  by  those  who  main- 
tain the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel.  It  was  adopted  by 
Weiss,^  and  by  Reuss,  although  the  latter  also  sparingly 
used  materials  drawn  from  the  Johannine  discourses  in  his 
portrayal  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.^  I  pursued  the  same 
plan  in  an  earlier  treatise.^  This  method  best  enables  one 
to  bring  out  the  individuality  of  the  Johannine  type  of 
thought,  and  may  be  justified  by  the  fact  that  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  is  so  completely  cast  into  the  moulds  of  the 
writer's  own  thought  that,  in  one  sense,  the  whole  book 
represents  the  conceptions  of  the  apostle.  The  Avhole  Gos- 
pel, as  truly  as  the  first  Epistle,  embodies  the  theology  of 
John  and  exemplifies  the  Johannine  style,  terminology, 
and  mode  of  conceiving  Christian  truth.  Where  the  spe- 
cial study  of  this  particular  type  of  thought  is  the  primary 
concern,  this  method  of  treating  the  Gospel  as  a  whole  is 
the  most  natural  and  useful. 

The  case  is  quite  different,  however,  when  one  makes 
the  content  of  Jesus'  teaching  his  special  point  of  depar- 
ture and  approaches  the  Gospel  with  a  view  to  exhibiting, 
not  so  much  a  certain  method  of  apostolic  thought  in  and 

1  In  his  Der  johanneische  Lehrbegriff  a,nd  his  Biblical  Theology  of  the 
New  Testament. 

2  In  his  History  of  Christian  Theology  in  the  Apostolic  Age. 
8  The  Johannine  Theology,  New  York,  1894. 


176  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

for  itself,  as  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  a  whole  and  the  vari- 
ous types  of  apostolic  doctrine  in  their  genetic  connection 
with  that  teaching  and  their  successive  evolution.  For  the 
purposes  of  the  theology  of  the  New  Testament  in  general  it 
is  necessary  to  separate  the  discourses  and  sayings  of  Jesus 
from  the  parts  which  emanate  from  the  author,  difficult  as 
it  is  to  do  this  in  any  satisfactory  manner.  This  is  the 
method  adopted  by  Beyschlag  ^  and  by  Bovon,^  and  is 
that  which  will  be  followed  in  this  volume.  For  reasons 
which  have  already  been  stated,  I  shall  not  deem  it  neces- 
sary—  as,  indeed,  I  do  not  think  it  practicable  —  to  try  to 
separate  completely  the  objective  from  the  subjective  in 
the  fourth  Gospel.  The  discourses,  for  example,  may 
with  perfect  propriety  be  used  as  secondary  sources  for 
illustrating  the  Johannine  theology,  while,  primarily,  they 
will  be  treated  as  a  source  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

1  In  his  New  Testament  Theology. 

2  Id  his  Theologie  du  Nouveau  Testament. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   IDEA  OF   GOD 

The  doctrine  of  God  which  the  fourth  Gospel  ascribes 
to  Jesus  is  in  no  essential  respect  different  from  that  which 
we  have  found  in  the  Synoptics.  It  is,  indeed,  expressed 
to  a  considerable  extent  in  different  words  and  phrases ; 
Jesus  speaks  more  of  the  special  relation  and  intimacy  be- 
tween God  and  himself;  several  statements  concerning 
God's  nature  and  action  are  found  which  are  more  abstract 
than  any  which  Ave  meet  with  in  the  first  three  Gospels ; 
yet  even  in  these  respects  the  difference  is  one  of  form  and 
emphasis  rather  than  of  substance.  In  general,  God  is 
represented  in  John's  report  of  our  Lord's  teaching,  just  as 
he  is  by  the  Synoptics,  as  the  heavenly  Father  who  loves 
and  blesses  all,  but  who  confers  special  spiritual  benefits 
upon  the  fulfilment  of  appropriate  spiritual  conditions. 

The  clearest  reference  in  our  source  to  what  moderns 
would  call  the  metaphysical  nature  of  God  is  that  word  of 
Jesus  to  the  Samaritan  woman:  "God  is  spirit"  (jrveviia 
6  de6<;^  iv.  24).  The  emphatic  position  of  irvevfxa  and  the 
course  of  thought  in  the  context  show  that  the  passage 
should  be  thus  rendered,  and  not,  as  in  both  our  English 
versions :  "  God  is  a  Spirit."  It  is  not  the  personality  so 
much  as  the  nature  of  God  which  the  saying  is  intended  to 
emphasize.  The  disputes  between  the  Samaritans  and  the 
Jews  as  to  the  place  where  God  ouglit  to  be  worshipped 
proceeded  as  if  he  were  a  local  divinity;  as  if  his  presence 
and  power  were  limited  or  could  onl}^  be  fully  manifested 
in  some  particular  place.  Jesus  penetrates  beneath  all 
such  inadequate  ideas  of  God  in  his  assertion  that  God 
can  be  worshipped  with  equal  advantage  anywhere  because 
he  is  not  limited  in  space  —  because  his  nature  is  spiritual. 
N  177 


178  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

Hence  what  is  required  in  the  worshipper  is  a  devout  and 
sincere  heart,  not  resort  to  some  special  locality.  The 
purport  of  the  saying  is  strictly  practical.  Both  the  Jew 
and  the  Samaritan  would  theoretically  admit  its  truth.  It 
was  the  basal  principle  of  the  religion  of  both.  But  it  was 
often  obscured  and  practically  forgotten.  The  aim  of  Jesus 
was  to  direct  attention  to  the  nature  of  God  as  a  spiritual 
Being  who  is  everywhere  present  with  his  sincere  worship- 
pers, in  order  that  he  might  emphasize  the  relative  unim- 
portance of  the  outward  form  and  accompaniments  of 
divine  worship  in  comparison  with  its  sincerity  and  spirit- 
uality. While  no  similar  saying  is  reported  in  the  Synop- 
tics, the  same  conception  of  God  and  of  his  worship 
underlies  the  expression  which,  in  some  form,  he  doubtless 
employed,  that  he  would  build  a  "temple  made  without 
hands,"  that  is,  set  up  a  purely  spiritual  worship  (Mk.  xiv. 
58).i 

Since  God  is  spirit  he  reveals  himself  in  ways  appro- 
priate to  his  nature.  He  does  not  manifest  himself  to  the 
senses ;  no  one  has  seen  the  Father,  except  in  the  revela- 
tion which  he  has  made  of  himself  in  his  Son  (vi.  46) ; 
"he  that  hath  seen  me,"  said  Jesus,  "hath  seen  the 
Father"  (xiv.  9).  But  it  is  a  spiritual  vision  of  God 
which  is  thus  obtained;  it  is  an  interpretation  of  his 
nature  and  character  which  is  derived  from  the  life  of 
Christ.  Those  who  are  incapable  of  this  spiritual  percep- 
tion neither  truly  see  God  in  his  progressive  self-disclosure 
in  Jewish  history  nor  in  his  consummate  revelation  in 
Christ.  The  spiritually  blinded  Jews  of  our  Lord's  time 
were  incapable  of  hearing  that  voice  of  God  which  had  so 
long  been  speaking  in  their  own  history  or  of  discerning 
the  divine  form  which  had  so  long  been  moving  amidst  the 

1  They  were,  indeed,  "false  witnesses"  who  testified  that  he  said: 
"I  will  destroy  this  temple,"  etc.,  but  the  alleged  saying  doubtless  had 
some  basis  of  fact.  The  falseness  might  well  consist  in  the  form  into 
which  his  actual  saying  had  been  cast,  e.g.  in  the  revolutionary  assertion 
ascribed  to  him  that  he  himself  would  destroy  the  temple  and  build  another 
in  its  place.  What  he  probably  did  say  —  that  he  would  constitute  a 
spiritual  worship  —  emerges  quite  clearly  through  the  false  interpretation 
which  his  enemies  had  given  to  his  words. 


THE   IDEA    OF    GO©  179 

prophetic  ideals  of  the  nation ;  and  the  reason  for  this  was 
that  the  outer  word  of  God  was  not  for  them  also  an  inner 
word.  Hence  they  continued  to  search  their  sacred  writ- 
ings, vainly  seeking  to  find  eternal  life  in  them  because 
they  had  lost  the  key  to  their  true  meaning  and  power 
(vi.  37-39).  What  is  this  but  the  doctrine  found  in  the 
Synoptics  that  men  must  be  morally  akin  to  God  in  order 
to  know  him ;  that  it  is  only  the  pure  in  heart  who  see  God 
(Mt.  V.  8)? 

In  the  fourth  Gospel  we  find  the  same  ethical  mono- 
theism which  we  met  with  in  the  Synoptics.  Both  forms 
of  the  gospel  tradition  have  the  same  Old  Testament 
basis.  The  God  of  both  is  the  God  of  Israel.  He  is  "  the 
fial^fiod"  (v.  44),  "the  only  true  God"  (xvii.  3),  the 
one  Being  who  in  reality  corresponds  to  the  true  idea  of 
God.  This  is  the  basal  truth  of  Israel's  religion  on  which, 
according  to  Mark  (xii.  29,  30),  quite  in  agreement  with 
the  Old  Testament  (Deut.  vi.  4,  5),  Jesus  based  his  great 
commandments  of  love  to  God  and  man. 

But  in  John,  as  in  the  Synoptics,  the  most  characteristic 
designation  of  God  is  "Father."  We  saw  that  the  content 
of  God's  fatherhood,  as  presented  in  the  first  three  Gospels, 
is  gracious  and  universal  love.  We  saw  that  God's  father- 
hood designated,  in  the  first  instance,  a. unique  relation  to 
his  Son,  and  also  a  special  fellowship  between  God  and  the 
disciples  of  Jesus,  involving  a  disposition  of  complaisance 
towards  them  on  God's  part  corresponding  to  their  obedience 
and  love.  But  we  also  found  that  God  was  spoken  of  as 
being  the  Father  of  all  men  in  the  sense  that  he  loves  and 
blesses  all  men,  who  are  by  nature  akin  to  himself.  The  same 
conceptions  meet  us  in  John.  In  relation  to  Christ,  God 
is  the  Father  in  a  unique  sense.  The  Father's  love  to  the 
Son  is  grounded  upon  an  original,  eternal  relation.  The 
Father  loved  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  (xvii. 
24).  In  consequence  of  that  relation  of  love  which  exists 
between  them,  God  has  given  to  his  Son  all  authority  and 
power  (iii.  35).  "  He  showeth  him  all  things  that  himself 
doeth  "  (v.  20).  A  historic  reason  is  also  given  for  this 
love  of  the  Father  to  the  Son,  namely,  the  Son's  willing- 


180  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

ness  to  lay  down  his  life  for  mankind  (x.  17),  and  it  is  the 
archetype  of  Christ's  own  love  to  his  disciples  (xv.  9). 

The  complaisant  love  of  the  Father  to  the  filial  and 
obedient,  that  is,  to  Christ's  disciples,  is  several  times 
emphasized.  The  Father  specially  loves  those  who  love 
Christ  and  kee^^  his  word  (xiv.  23).  He  regards  with 
particular  approval  those  who  love  the  Son  and  believe  in 
his  divine  mission  (xvi.  27);  indeed,  this  special  loving 
favor  of  God  to  the  believing  and  obedient  is  likened  to 
the  love  which  the  Father  has  to  the  Son  himself  (xvii.  23). 
This  representation  corresponds  to  the  usage  of  the  Synop- 
tists  who,  when  speaking  of  the  relation  between  God  and 
man,  apply  the  terms  "fatherhood"  and  "sonship"  by  pref- 
erence to  the  fellowship  which  exists  between  God  and  the 
trustful  and  obedient.  The  relation  which  these  words, 
when  so  used,  denote  is  a  reciprocal  one,  and  can  only  be  per- 
fectly realized  when  man  fulfils  by  obedience  and  love  his 
side  of  the  relation.  To  the  numerous  Synoptic  passages 
which  speak  of  God  as  the  Father  of  Christians,  correspond 
these  Johannine  references  to  the  special  love  and  favor 
with  which  he  regards  those  who  accept  the  mission  and 
work  of  his  Son.  But  neither  of  these  representations 
limits  his  fatherhood  and  love  to  one  portion  of  mankind. 
All  men  are  still  ideally  his  sons  by  virtue  of  their  native 
kinship  to  him,  and  he  loves  all  in  his  unceasing  and 
boundless  benevolence. 

The  supreme  proof  of  God's  love  \ to  the  whole  world  is 
seen  in  his  sending  his  Son  to  save  it  (iii.  16).  If  love  is 
the  essence  of  the  divine  fatherhood,  then  must  it  follow 
that  if  God  loves  all  men,  he  is  the  Father  of  all.  We 
accordingly  find  that  Jesus  designates  him  as  "the  Father" 
without  qualification  (iv.  23;  xv.  16;  xvi.  23).  It  may, 
indeed,  be  claimed  that  in  these  passages  God  is  spoken  of 
as  "  the  Father  "  with  reference  to  his  relation  to  Christ 
himself.  But  it  appears  to  me  quite  impossible  to  impose 
this  limitation  upon  the  title.  In  the  first  of  the  passages 
just  cited  Jesus  is  speaking  of  God  as  an  object  of  worship 
by  his  creatures  and  not  of  God's  relation  to  himself.  The 
Father  desires  sincere  and  rational  worship,  he  says.     In 


THE   IDEA   OF   GOD  181 

both  the  other  passages  Jesus  is  speaking  of  the  conditions 
on  which  his  disciples  may  secure  from  the  Father  that  which 
they  seek  in  prayer.  JMoreover,  the  obvious  references 
in  the  first  Epistle  to  God  as  the  Father  of  men  (ii.  1; 
iii.  1)  seem  to  me  to  make  it  evident  that  the  apostle  under- 
stood God's  fatherhood,  as  represented  in  Jesus'  teaching, 
to  be  universal.  If  this  view  is  correct,  the  fourth  Gospel 
yields  us,  in  the  substance  of  its  report  of  our  Lord's  doc- 
trine, the  same  view  of  God's  fatherhood  as  the  Synoptics. 
God  is  the  Father  of  all  men  because  he  made  and  loves 
all ;  still  he  is  more  commonly  designated  by  the  title  of 
Father  in  his  relation  to  believers,  because  their  attitude 
towards  him  makes  it  possible  for  him  to  feel  and  act 
towards  them  as  he  is  indeed  disposed  to  do  towards  all, 
that  is,  to  show  them  that  favor  and  complaisance  which 
correspond  to  their  obedience  and  love  to  him.  In  like 
manner,  all  men  are  his  sons  in  what  may  be  called  the 
natural  sense,  but  they  become  his  true  children  in  the 
higher  spiritual  sense,  corresponding  to  his  perfect  love, 
only  by  an  ethical  transformation  and  development.^ 

In  entire  agreement  with  these  ideas  of  God's  boundless 
love  and  universal  fatherhood  he  is  described  as  unceas- 
ingly engaged  in  the  bestowment  of  blessing  upon  his 
creatures.  Jesus  represented  his  beneficent  works  as 
having  their  ground  and  spring  in  the  beneficence  of 
the  Father  who  had  sent  him  on  his  mission  of  mercy 
to  earth.  In  accomplishing  this  mission  his  life  was  but 
keyed  to  harmony  with  the  Father's  nature.  "  My  Father 
worketh  even  until  now,  and  I  work,"  he  said  (v.  17). 

1  Jn.  viii.  41-44,  especially  the  words  :  "  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil, ' ' 
are  sometimes  adduced,  as  by  Professor  C.  M,  Mead,  Am.  Jonr.  of  TheoL, 
July,  1898,  to  show  that  Christ's  application  of  the  term  "  Father  "  is  "not 
as  broad  as  the  whole  human  race, "  "is  not  universal, ' '  and  even  as  an  ' '  ex- 
plicit declaration  that  God  is  not  the  Father  of  all  men"  (pp.  591,  592). 
But  what  Jesus  is  here  asserting  is  that  some  men  are  not  true  sons  of 
God ;  they  are  not  like  him,  but  are  like  the  devil.  He  no  more  asserts 
that  God  is  not  the  Father  even  of  those  men  than  in  saying:  "If 
Abraham  were  your  Father,"  he  denied  that  the  persons  addressed  were 
Abraham's  descendants.  The  passage  is  not  concerned  with  teaching  any 
doctrine  about  God,  but  only  with  describing  the  moral  character  of  the 
men  in  question. 


182  THE   JOHANKINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

The  Father  is  a  perpetual  worker  in  all  the  methods  which 
are  known  to  his  wisdom  and  love  by  which  he  can  bless 
mankind.  To  this  truth  Jesus  made  his  appeal  when  he 
was  reproaclied  for  healing  the  sick  on  the  sabbath.  His 
answer  was :  The  nature  of  God  is  my  justification ;  his 
benevolence  does  not  cease  on  the  sabbath,  nor  should  mine. 
This  incident  furnished  the  keynote  for  the  whole  dis- 
course which  followed  (v.  19  sq.).  The  whole  work  of 
Jesus  is  grounded  in  the  Father's  natui:e^,;  he  does  nothing 
but  what  he  sees  the  Father  doing.  God  delights  to  be- 
stow spiritual  life  and  blessing,  and  he  has  sent  his  Son 
to  earth  for  this  very  purpose  Qv.  21).  And  this,  con- 
tinued Jesus,  is  the  hour  of  spiritual  quickening  for  all 
who  will  hear  the  divine  voice  which  summons  them  forth 
from  the  stupor  of  self-satisfaction  and  sin  (^v.  25  sq.'). 
At  this  point  (y.  28)  the  passage,  as  it  lies  before  us  in 
our  source,  seems  to  pass  over  into  the  thought  of  the 
consummation  of  the  life-giving  process  in  the  resurrec- 
tion at  the  end  of  the  current  age.  The  Father,  then,  as 
the  absolute  Source  of  spiritual  life,  has  made  the  Son  also 
the  bearer  of  the  same  life  to  all  who  will  receive  him 
(?;.  26).  God  is  the  absolutely  living  One  (o  ^mv  iraryp, 
vi.  57),  and  he  imparts  spiritual  life  to  the  world  through 
the  Son  who  lives  because  of  the  Father  (Sta  rov  irarepa^ 
vi.  57)  ;  that  is,  the  Son  is  made  the  dispenser  of  life 
because  of  his  unique  and  essential  relation  to  the  Father. 
The  work  of  Christ  for  men  is  thus  wholly  in  the  sphere 
of  the  spirit ;  it  concerns  man's  higher  life  in  which  he  is 
kindred  to  God ;  it  occupies  itself  not  with  what  is  out- 
ward and  incidental,  but  wdth  what  is  essential  to  man's 
true  nature  and  destiny  (vi.  63).  Thus  it  appears  how 
his  vocation  expresses  the  nature  of  God  as  the  all-merci- 
ful and  the  all-pervading  Spirit,  in  fellowship  with  whom 
man  fulfils  his  destiny.  These  mystical  descriptions  are 
the  Johannine  counterpart  of  the  Synoptic  teaching  con- 
cerning God's  boundless  and  universal  love  and  the  pos- 
sible sonship  of  man  to  God  which  he  realizes  in  a  life  of 
love  like  that  of  God,  which  is  the  type  of  all  moral  per- 
fection (Mt.  V.  48). 


THE   IDEA   OF   GOD  183 

As  the  loving  Father,  God  desires  not  to  condemn  but 
jfco_say£-  men-  (v.  22)  Plence  he  sent  his  Son,  not  to  judge 
the  world,  but  "  that  the  world  should  be  saved  through 
him"  (iii.  17).  Hence  Jesus  assured  men  that  the  aim 
of  his  coming  to  earth  was  not  to  judge  them  (viii.  15; 
xii.  47).  A  process  of  judgment  is,  however,  inseparable 
from  his  saving  mission.  Truth,  like  light,  necessarily 
judges  everything  which  it  touches.  Jesus'  disclosures 
of  truth  to  men,  and  his  very  efforts  to  save  them,  in- 
volve their  judgment  if  they  spurn  his  truth  and  reject  his 
salvation.  Hence  he  says  that  his  truth  cannot  but  test 
men;  his  word  will  judge  them  and  the  reason  why  it 
will  do  so  is  that  it  is  not  his  mere  personal  word,  but  the 
divine  truth  which  he  has  received  from  the  Father  (xii. 
48-50).  His  primary  function  is  not  that  of  Judge,  but 
that  of  Saviour;  yet  his  work  judges  men,  and  that  be- 
cause he  is  not  alone,  but  stands  in  living  and  perfect 
fellowship  with  God,  and  must  deal  with  men  in  a  way 
which  corresponds  with  God's  own  perfect  ethical  nature. 
God  reveals  himself  for  men's  salvation,  but  it  will  depend 
upon  their  attitude  towards  his  gracious  revelation  whether 
it  will  involve  their  salvation  or  their  judgment.  In  this 
way  the  teaching  and  work  of  Christ  —  God's  consummate 
self-manifestation  —  become  the  test  of  men.  To  Christ 
God  has  committed  the  work  of  salvation ;  but  with  that 
is  inseparably  connected  a  work  of  judgment,  because  he 
that  honors  the  Son  honors  the  Father,  and  he  that  honors 
not  the  Son,  honors  not  the  Father  who  sent  him  (v.  22,  23). 

This  teaching  but  exhibits  in  clear  light  the  reverse  side 
of  the  benevolence  of  God.  It  lays  the  strongest  emphasis 
on  the  divine  willingness  to  bless  and  save,  but  shows  how 
that  disposition  must  be  affected  by  the  attitude  which 
men  take  up  towards  it.  God  cannot  approve  or  bless 
with  his  favor  those  who  scorn  his  mercy.  Salvation  im- 
plies conditions  which  must  be  fulfilled  by  those  to  Avhom 
it  is  offered.  This  truth  is  brought  out  in  the  Synoptic 
teaching  in  a  less  general  form,  in  connection  with  the 
divine  forgiveness.  It  is  insisted  upon  that  God  cannot 
unconditionally  forgive  (Mt.  vi.  15).     He  must  maintain 


184  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

the  attitude  of  disapproval  or  condemnation  towards  those 
who  will  not  fulfil  the  conditions  on  which  alone  his  grace 
can  be  offered  or  bestowed.  This  is  the  idea  which  is 
elaborated  in  more  generic  form  in  the  teaching  of  the 
Johannine  discourses  concerning  the  divine  judgment. 
God  is  essentially  gracious,  but  he  manifests  his  grace 
in  accordance  with  the  demands  of  his  total  perfection. 
Being  what  he  is,  he  must  judge,  and  men  are  therefore 
approved  or  rejected  by  him  according  as  they  fulfil  or 
refuse  to  fulfil  the  essential  moral  conditions  which  belong 
to  the  very  nature  of  the  filial  and  obedient  life  of  fellow- 
ship with  God. 

In  entire  accord  with  this  idea  the  discourses  speak  of 
God  as  righteous  and  holy.  These  references  (xvii.  11,  25) 
are,  indeed,  quite  incidental,  but  they  are  not  on  that  ac- 
count less  significant.  The  terms  are  used  in  the  interces- 
sory prayer  of  Jesus  as  appellatives  of  the  Fatlier.  Their 
connection  shows  that  they  do  not  designate  specifically  the 
judicial  aspect  of  the  divine  nature,  but  refer  to  what  we 
may  call  the  divine  equitableness  or  self-consistency.  To 
the  "holy  Father"  Jesus  appeals  to  keep  or  guard  his 
disciples.  The  implication  of  the  petition  is  that  the  holy, 
the  perfectly  good  and  just.  Father  will  not  forsake  those 
who  have  believed  on  his  Son  (xvii.  11).  The  second 
petition  (xvii.  25)  is  similar :  "  O  righteous  Father,  the 
world  knew  thee  not,  but  I  knew  thee,"  etc.  It  is  an 
appeal  to  God  as  the  righteous  One  to  regard  the  disciples 
with  that  tender  love  and  protecting  care  which  are  cor- 
relative to  their  believing  acceptance  of  Christ.  The 
righteousness  of  God  seems  to  be  conceived  of  as  the 
guaranty  that  God  will  bestow  special  regard  upon  those 
who  have  heard  and  obeyed  the  voice  with  which  he  has 
spoken  in  his  Son.  It  is  the  uprightness  or  rectitude  of 
God  which,  on  the  one  hand,  necessitates  his  judgment 
of  unbelief  and  sin,  and,  on  the  other,  assures  his  favor  to 
humble  trust  and  devout  acceptance  of  his  truth.  It  is 
but  an  outcropping  of  the  idea  which  is  found  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and,  which  underlay  Jesus'  teaching,  that 
righteousness,  self-consistency  or  self-respect,  and  benevo- 


THE   IDEA   OF   GOD  185 

lence,  mercy  or  self-imparting  goodness,  meet  and  blend 
in  the  perfect  love  of  God. 

It  remains  to  consider  the  conditions  on  which  God  is 
to  be  known.  The  most  instructive  single  passage,  in  this 
connection,  is  xvii.  3:  "And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
should  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  him  whom  thou 
didst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ."  Interpreters  are  divided 
on  the  question  whether  this  statement  is  intended  to 
define  the  nature  of  eternal  life  ^  or  is  to  be  understood  as 
an  assertion  of  the  condition  on  which  eternal  life  is  ob- 
tained.2  While  I  adopt  the  latter  view  of  the  passage,  I 
would  maintain  a  very  close  and  vital  connection  between 
the  knowledge  of  God  and  eternal  life.  To  possess  the 
former,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  words  are  used  in  our 
passage,  is  to  possess  the  latter.  This  is  but  to  say  that 
the  knowledge  of  God  is  no  merely  intellectual  affair ;  it 
is  a  spiritual  intuition,  and  is  founded  on  ethical  likeness 
and  fellowship  of  life.  He  knows  God  who  obeys  and 
loves  him.  The  knowledge  of  God  is  the  consent  of  the 
whole  being  to  the  divine  will,  the  sympathy  of  the  whole 
nature  with  God's  perfections  and  requirements.  This 
knowledge  of  God  is  impossible,  except  by  a  transforma- 
tion whereby  man  becomes  conformed  to  God  in  thought, 
will,  and  action.  A  purity  of  heart  and  purpose,  whereby 
one  comes  into  an  inner  likeness  to  God,  is  the  necessary 
organ  of  this  knowledge.  Here  again  we  meet  with  the 
same  truth  which  we  found  in  the  Synoptic  version  of  our 
Lord's  teaching :  The  pure  in  heart  see  God,  for  the  pure 
heart  is  the  eye  (Mt.  v.  8). 

Accordingly  Jesus  teaches  that  to  know  him  —  to  appre- 
hend the  real  significance  of  his  person,  teaching,  and  work 
—  is  to  know  God:  "If  ye  had  known  me,  ye  would  have 
^sj^nown  my  Father  also  "  (xiv.  7).  The  sinful  world  knows 
neither  him  nor  the  Father  who  sent  him  (xvi.  3).  Those, 
however,  who  recover  their  spiritual  vision  so  as  to  see 
him  in  his  true  significance  and  character,  see  also  the 
Father    who    speaks    and   works    through   him    (xiv.  9). 

1  So  Weiss  and  Westcott. 

2  So  Liicke,  Meyer,  Wendt,  and  Beyschlag. 


186  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

Those  who  are  born  from  above,  that  is,  those  who  receive 
a  divine  impartation  of  life  and  light  from  God,  see  his 
Kingdom  —  apprehend  and  consent  to  its  heavenly  truths 
and  laws ;  and  what  is  this  but  entering  into  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  as  he  discloses  his  nature  and  purposes  in 
human  history  ?  God  does  indeed  reveal  himself  to  man 
in  historic  action  ;  but  this  outward  revelation  only  becomes 
a  real  possession  through  the  soul's  appropriation  of  it  ac- 
cording to  its  true  meaning  and  power.  The  light  of 
God  came  into  the  world  in  Christ,  but  it  illuminates  only 
those  who  open  their  hearts  to  it.  God  can  dwell  only 
with  him  who  loves  that  which  is  Godlike.  Love  is 
therefore  the  essence  of  the  knowledge  of  God  (xiv.  21- 
23).  Love  is  the  true  bond  between  the  soul  and  God; 
it  alone  can  open  the  way  to  the  realization  of  eternal  life. 
Here  again  we  are  brought  back  to  the  Synoptic  teaching 
that  love  is  the  sum  of  all  God's  requirements  (Mk.  xii. 
28-31 ;  Mt.  xxii.  35-40),  the  indispensable  condition  of 
all  growth  in  the  life  and  likeness  of  God  (Mt.  v.  43-48). 


CHAPTER   III 

THE   SINFUL   WOKLD 

"The  world"  is  spoken  of  in  the  fourth  Gospel  in  three 
distinguishable  senses.  It  sometimes  means  creation  in 
general,  as  when  Jesus  speaks  of  the  fellowship  which 
he  had  with  the  Father  "before  the  world  was"  (xvii.  5), 
or  "before  the  foundation  of  the  world"  (xvii.  24).  Some- 
times it  denotes  humanity  —  the  present  world  considered 
as  a  realm  of  rational  and  moral  action.  In  this  sense 
Christ  came  into  the  world  as  its  light  (iii.  19)  ;  that  is, 
he  came  to  man  and  entered  into  his  life  that  he  might 
bring  to  him  the  blessings  of  salvation  (xi.  27 ;  xvi.  28). 
This  idea  of  the  world  easily  passes  over  into  that  which  is 
characteristic  of  our  source,  namely,  the  idea  of  the  world 
as  a  sphere  of  evil  —  the  world  as  alienated  from  God  by 
sin.  Hence  Christ  came  to  "save  the  world"  (xii.  46,  47). 
It  was  in  danger  of  perishing  in  consequence  of  its  sinful- 
ness ;  but  God  in  his  love  sent  his  Son  to  save  it  (iii.  16). 
In  this  sense  "the  world"  means  mankind  as  it  is  by 
nature  —  sinful  man  exposed  to  the  divine  judgment  and 
needing  the  divine  mercy. 

The  world,  then,  in  this  sense  is  mankind  as  the  subject 
of  redemption  and  includes  all  men  so  far  as  they  still  fall 
short  of  the  true  life  of  fellowship  with  God  or  of  likeness 
to  him.  Hence  the  contrariety  between  Christ's  Kingdom 
and  the  world  (xviii.  36).  The  people  of  his  time  for  the 
most  ]jart  illustrated  the  spirit  of  the  world  which  is  alien- 
ated from  God.  The  world,  he  declares,  did  not  knowl 
God  (xvii.  25)  ;  hates  his  disciples  (xvii.  14) ;  cannoti 
receive  the  Spirit  of  truth  (xiv.  17),  and  is  in  bondage  to  I 
Satan  as  its  prince  (xii.  31 ;  xiv.  30).  Jesus  was  the 
champion  of  a  spiritual  life  and  a  spiritual  Kingdom ;  the 

187 


188  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

people  of  his  time  were  mainly  given  over  to  religious 
formalism  and  selfish  ambition.  Between  him  and  them 
there  was  little  common  ground.  Without  a  marked 
change  of  standpoint  and  temper  they  could  never  appre- 
ciate his  truth.  They  were  from  beneath,  he  was  from 
above ;  they  were  of  this  world,  he  was  not  of  this  world 
(viii.  23).  Jesus  described  their  state  as  one  of  bondage 
(viii.  33-36).  It  was  a  bondage,  however,  which  they  had 
imposed  upon  themselves  by  sin.  From  this  servitude  he 
offered  them  freedom  through  the  acceptance  of  the  truth 
as  it  was  embodied  in  his  own  person.  The  true  life  of 
love  —  life  according  to  its  perfect  pattern,  the  nature  of 
God  himself  —  was  open  to  them.  But  most  were  too 
blind  to  see  it,  lacking  in  the  very  capacity  to  desire  it. 
They  had  become  willing  captives  to  the  world  of  self- 
seeking  ambition  —  bondslaves  of  sin  (viii.  3-i).  Steeped 
in  self-satisfaction  the  people  were  insensible  to  their  own 
need  and  folly.  Though  really  blind,  they  persisted  in 
saying :  "  We  see  "  (ix.  41).  Here  was  a  double  fault.  To 
be  spiritually  blind  through  wilful  self-perversion  were, 
indeed,  bad  enough ;  but  how  radical  must  be  the  moral 
depravity  of  those  who  are  not  even  conscious  of  their 
blindness,  Avho  have  extirpated  the  very  capacity  to  desire 
the  spiritual  life. 

In  the  Johannine  discourses  sin  is  represented  a&^ait 
ness,  while  truth  and  holiness  are  analogous  to  light. 
Darkness  is  the  symbol  of  ignorance,  evil,  and  death.  The 
sinful  world  loves  the  darkness  rather  than  the  light,  and 
hence  rejects  him  who  brings  to  it  the  truth  and  the  life. 
This  is,  indeed,  the  world's  judgment  that  it  prefers  its 
own  folly  to  the  heavenly  wisdom  which  Christ  offers  (iii. 
19-21).  He  is  the  light  of  the  world  and  offers  the  light 
of  life  to  those  who  are  walking  in  darkness  (viii.  12  ; 
xii.  35,  46).  By  this  analogy,  drawn  from  the  natural 
world,  the  evil  of  sin  is  set  in  contrast  to  the  joy  and 
blessedness  of  goodness.  Light  suggests  every  attribute 
of  goodness  —  its  purity,  its  beneficence,  its  perfect  accord 
with  man's  true  nature,  its  divineness.  On  this  white 
background  is  set  the  deformity,  the  misery,  the  wicked 


THE   SINFUL   WOKLD  189 

folly  of  sin.  Sin  is  the  eclipse  of  the  soul ;  the  obscura- 
tion of  man's  sense  of  his  divine  origin  and  destiny.  It  is 
failure,  perversion,  moral  death.  It  is  a  defacing  of  the 
image  of  God  in  man ;  the  forfeiture  of  man's  true  life  as 
a  son  of  God. 

The  Synoptists  also  represent  Jesus  as  making  use  of 
the  figure  of  light  and  darkness  in  his  teaching  concerning 
holiness  and  sin."  ^  There,  too,  light  is  the  symbol  of  the 
blessedness  of  the  spiritual  life.  As  the  light  fills  the 
world  with  brightness  and  beauty  when  the  eye  which 
is  adapted  to  it  is  healthy,  so  God  fills  the  spiritual  world 
with  supreme  attraction  and  interest  when  the  soul  is 
freely  open  to  his  heavenly  truth  (Mt.  vi.  22-24).  Light 
is  a  name  for  man's  true  and  normal  life  as  a  son  of  God. 
The  resulting  doctrine  is  the  same  as  we  have  found  in 
John.  To  refuse  the  light  is  to  become  "  full  of  dark- 
ness." It  is  to  forfeit  one's  true  life  and  to  renounce  his 
divine  destiny.  It  is,  so  far,  to  lose  one's  own  self  (Lk. 
ix.  25).  Sin  is  thus  that  which  is  abnormal  in  the  moral 
life  of  man.  It  is  discord  in  a  world  which  is  divinely 
attuned  to  harmony ;  rupture  in  a  world  which  is  made 
for  unity ;  a  shadow  which  obscures  to  human  eyes  the 
very  purpose  of  the  Eternal,  spreads  its  fatal  blight  over 
all  the  relations  of  life,  and  darkens  the  brightest  dreams 
of  human  happiness  and  achievement. 

The  contrast  of  fllesh  and  spirit  is  also  found  in  our 
source :  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  and 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit"  (iii.  6).  This 
passage  is  a  part  of  Jesus'  teaching  concerning  the  "  birth 
from  above."  It  rests  upon  the  idea  that  there  are  two 
orders,  —  the  order  of  nature  and  the  order  of  spirit.  Our 
natural  birth  pertains  to  the  former ;  by  it  we  are  ushered 
into  the  realm  of  personal,  independent  activity.  But  if 
we  are  to  fulfil  our  supreme  destiny,  we  must  experience 
another  birth  —  birth  into  the  world  of  spiritual  interests 
and  realities.  To  both  these  realms  we  are  related ;  it  is 
not  enough  to  fulfil  our  relation  to  one,  and  not  to  the 
other  and  higher.  Jesus  does  not  here  represent  the  natu- 
ral life  as  essentially  sinful,  but  only  as  something  lower 


190  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

than  man's  proper  destiny.  He  must  live  the  spiritual 
life,  the  life  of  God's  Kingdom,  if  he  is  to  attain  his  divinely 
destined  goal.  The  inference  is  inevitable,  however,  that 
if  the  lower  life  is  made  supreme  and  sufficient,  the  sinful 
perversion  which  has  been  described  under  other  terms 
must  follow.  The  outward,  the  incidental,  the  mere  husk 
of  existence,  is  not  inherently  evil,  although  it  is  compara- 
tively valueless  (vi.  63).  But  it  may  become  an  occasion 
of  evil  if  chosen  and  estimated  as  supreme.  Then  the 
lower  becomes  the  enemy  of  the  higher.  This  false  esti- 
mate Jesus  seeks  to  prevent  by  leading  men  to  esteem  as 
highest  that  wliich  is  truly  highest,  by  placing  first  that 
which  is  really  supreme  —  the  spiritual  life  of  love  in  fel- 
lowship with  God,  a  primary  interest  in  the  highest  things. 

We  find  essentially  the  same  contrast  and  the  same 
resulting  doctrine  in  the  Synoptic  version  of  Jesus'  teach- 
ing. "  Flesh  and  blood  "  has  not  revealed  Jesus'  messiah- 
ship  to  Peter  (Mt.  xvi.  17) ;  he  did  not  derive  the 
knowledge  of  it  from  any  outward  or  natural  source  of 
information,  but  by  spiritual  discernment.  He  had  spirit- 
ually perceived  what  Jesus  was  by  that  living  apprehen- 
sion, that  vital  affinity  of  life  with  him,  which  is  fittingly 
described  as  an  inspiration  fj-om  God.  This  higher 
spiritual  nature  of  Peter,  this  eager  interest  and  devoted 
attachment  to  his  Master's  person,  was  very  strong  in 
him ;  the  spirit  was  willing,  but  on  the  dark  night  of 
Jesus'  sorrow  and  betrayal,  it  was  temporarily  overcome, 
because  the  flesh  was  weak.  The  lower  nature  —  the 
natural  fears  and  aversion  to  danger  —  asserted  them- 
selves, calling  forth  the  mild  rebuke :  "  Couldst  thou 
not  watch  one  hour?  "  (Mt.  xiv.  38).  The  lesson  running 
through  both  forms  of  teaching  is :  Subordinate  the  lower 
to  the  higher;  place  that  first  which  is  first;  make  the 
spiritual  life  primary  ;  seek  God's  Kingdom  and  righteous- 
ness fi7'st  (Mt.  vi.  33),  and  let  every  other  legitimate  object 
of  desire  be  sought  second. 

There  is  no  formal  definition  of  sin  in  the  Johannine 
discourses.  It  is,  however,  described  as  an  enslaving 
power  (viii.  34),  a  perverting  principle  which  gains  sway 


THE   SINFUL   WORLD  191 

over  the  lives  of  men  (viii.  21).  Jesus  .recognizes  the 
sin  or  sinfulness  of  men  as  something  more  than  the  sum 
of  specific  acts  of  .,sin.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  sinful 
character  —  a  state  of  sin  of  which  sinful  acts  are  the 
evidence  and  expression.  He  also  speaks  of  "  sins  "  (viii. 
24;  XX.  23)  which  he  evidently  regards  as  having  their 
root  in  sinful  habit  and  propensity.  This  is  especially 
manifest  in  the  v/ay  in  which  he  is  represented  as  speaking 
of  habitual  sinning  and  of  committing  acts  of  sin  :  "  Every 
one  that  committeth  sin  (Tra?  6  ttolmv  ttjv  aij^apriav)  is  the 
bondservant  of  sin,"  (viii.  34) ;  that  is,  every  one  w^ho 
habitually  sins,  who  lives  the  sinful  life,  is  in  a  moral 
bondage  to  evil,  a  bondage  of  will  which  springs  out  of  the 
sinful  character  which  he  has  developed.  But  "to  sin" 
sometimes  refers  rather  to  the  commission  of  sinful  acts, 
as  in  the  conversation  in  which  the  disciples  asked  Jesus 
concerning  the  man  who  was  born  blind:  "Rabbi,  who 
did  sin  (rt?  rjiiaprev)^  this  man,  or  his  parents,  that  he 
should  be  born  blind?"  (ix.  2).  Their  idea  apparently 
was  that  some  one  must  have  committed  a  great  act  of 
sin  of  which  the  man's  blindness  was  the  consequence. 
Jesus  set  aside  this  assumption  on  which  their  question 
rested  and  said,  in  effect:  His  blindness  is  not  the  result 
of  an  act  of  sin  on  the  part  of  any  one. 

In  the  apostle's  own  development  of  the  doctrine  of  sin 
some  important  discriminations  turn  on  this  distinction 
between  doing  acts  of  sin  and  living  the  habitually  sinful 
life.^  It  is  obvious  that  while  they  are  to  be  distinguished, 
the  former  tends  to  pass  into  the  latter.  This  tendency, 
however,  is  rather  implied  than  explicitly  expressed  in  the 
discourses.  But  the  recognition  of  sin  as  an  inner  princi- 
ple or  power,  reminds  one  of  the  Synoj^tic  teaching  which 
pictures  sin  as  having  its  seat  in  the  inner  life  (?dt.  v.  22 ; 
xii.  34;  Mk.  vii.  20-23).  As  the  fruit  of  a  tree  is  the 
expression  of  its  nature  (Mt.  vii.  16-18),  so  the  words  and 
acts  of  men  are  the  expression  of  their  characters  (Mt.  xii. 
35-37).  In  its  substance,  this  is  the  same  teaching  as  that 
found  in  John.  The  heart  determines  the  conduct.  The 
1  Cf.  my  Johannine  Theology,  pp.  137,  138. 


192  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

man  who  gives  his  life  over  to  sin  comes  under  the 
power  of  a  moral  necessity  of  expressing  his  evil  propen- 
sities in  action.  He  must  act  as  he  is.  Moreover,  his 
bondage  to  evil  is  cumulative.  By  a  sinful  life  he  welds 
the  fetters  of  evil  more  and  more  strongly  upon  his  soul. 
The  view  taken  of  the  nature  and  practical  effect  of  evil  is 
the  same  in  both  forms  of  the  evangelical  tradition,  although 
its  operation  is  more  graphically  pictured,  and  with  a 
greater  variety  of  illustration,  in  the  Synoptics  than  in 
John. 

Like  the  Synoptics  the  Johannine  tradition  represents 
Jesus  as  assuming  that  all  men  are  sinful.  He  describes 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  as  including  the  convincing  of  the 
world  "  concerning  sin  " ;  that  is,  making  the  world  con- 
scious of  the  sinfulness  involved  in  its  unwillingness  to 
receive  Christ.  While  this  is  not  an  explicit  assertion  of 
the  absolute  universality  of  sin,  it  clearly  reflects  the 
consciousness  on  the  part  of  Jesus  tliat  the  world  of  his 
time  was  mainly  against  him.  More  explicit  are  the 
sayings  in  which  he  declares  that  he  is  come  to  save  the 
world  (iii.  17 ;  xii.  46,  47),  especially  the  locus  classicus  : 
"  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  be- 
gotten Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  eternal  life  "  (iii.  16).  If  salvation  is  for 
the  whole  world,  the  whole  world  must  stand  in  need  of 
it;  all  men  must  be  regarded  as  sinful.  We  found  this 
same  presupposition  running  through  the  Synoptic  teach- 
ing. No  exceptions  from  the  requirement  of  repentance  were 
recognized.  Even  kind  and  generous  parents  v/ere  spoken 
of  as  "evil,"  that  is,  sinful  (Mt.  vii.  11).  Even  Jesus' 
own  disciples  whose  lives  were  under  the  inspiring  power  of 
his  own,  and  whom  he  would  unquestionably  class  with 
"good"  men  (Mt.  xii.  35),  must  ask  to  have  their  sins 
forgiven  and  their  hearts  more  completely  delivered  from 
evil  desires  and  passions  (Lk.  xi.  4;  Mt.  vi.  12-15).  The 
goodness  of  the  best  of  men  is  but  relative.  Evil  pervades 
human  life  as  a  subtle  atmosphere.  Man  can  be  delivered 
from  it  only  in  proportion  as  he  puts  his  life  under  the 
conquering  might  of  goodness  and  becomes  the  bondslave 


THE   SINFUL   WORLD  193 

of  righteousness  —  a  good  tree  which  brings  forth  fruit 
"  after  its  kind  "  by  a  necessity  which  is  founded  in  the  law 
of  life  that  what  a  man  chooses,  says,  and  does  is  essentially 
determined  by  what  he  is  (Mt.  xii.  33-37). 

The  phenomena  of  ''  demoniacal  possession,"  which  are 
so  vividly  described  in  the  Synoptics,  do  not  appear  in  the 
fourth  Gospel.  The  only  "•  possession  "  which  is  there 
recognized  is  that  which  his  enemies  maliciously  ascribed 
to  Jesus  himself.  Several  times  they  charged  him  with 
having  "a  demon"  (vii.  20;  viii.  48;  x.  20).  The  context 
of  these  passages  shows  that  this  possession  which  they 
attributed  to  him  was  thought  of  as  a  form  of  madness. 
When  he  solemnly  asked  the  Jews  why  they  were  seeking 
to  kill  him,  they  replied  by  the  taunt :  "Thou  hast  a  demon : 
who  seeketh  to  kill  thee?"  (vii.  20).  The  third  passage 
(x.  20)  describes  a  dispute  as  to  his  sanity.  Some  said: 
"  He  hath  a  demon,  and  is  mad ;  why  hear  ye  him  ?  "  The 
second  passage  expresses  the  charge  of  madness  leading  to 
absurd  and  irreverent  presumption.  The  Jews  say :  "  Thou 
art  a  Samaritan,  and  hast  a  demon  "  (viii.  48) ;  and  when 
he  still  asserts  his  divine  mission  and  his  power  to  bestow 
life,  they  return  the  charge  more  vehemently :  "  Now  we 
know  that  thou  hast  a  demon"  (viii.  52).  From  these 
passages  we  see  that  "possession"  by  demons  was  popu- 
larly regarded,  according  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  as  the 
explanation  of  aggravated  forms  of  mania  which  led  its 
subjects  into  wild  and  irrational  ideas  and  actions. 

We  note  here  the  same  fact  which  we  observed  in  the 
Synoptic  representations,  namely,  that  "possession"  is  not 
associated  with  special  wickedness.  The  fourth  Gospel 
strongly  confirms  the  conclusion  to  which  we  were  led  by 
an  examination  of  the  Synoptic  passages,  —  that  all  the 
symptoms  which  are  ascribed  to  demoniacal  possession  are 
characteristic  of  various  forms  of  disease,  especially  of 
mental  disease ;  and  no  one  would  experience  any  diffi- 
culty in  explaining  them  as  such  if  the  language  of  the 
Gospels  did  not  attribute  them  to  possession  by  demons. 
We  find  no  idea  of  the  subject  in  the  fourth  Gospel  which 
is  not  explicable  in  the  same  way.     Possession  is  mania; 


194  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF    JESUS 

and  its  relation  to  special  wickedness,  if  it  exists,  is  medi- 
ate and  indirect.  In  the  language  which  the  fourth  Gospel 
ascribes  to  Jesus,  there  is  no  reference  whatever  to  the  pos- 
session of  men  by  demons.  This  source,  therefore,  reflects 
only  the  popular  idea  of  it,  and  does  not  represent  Jesus 
himself  as  making  any  reference  to  the  subject.  The  phe- 
nomena of  "  possession,"  therefore,  yield  us  no  data  for  the 
doctrine  of  sin  which  we  are  seeking  to  derive  from  the 
Johannine  memoranda  of  the  Lord's  words. 

The  same  cannot  be  said,  however,  with  respect  to 
the  idea  of  Satan.  The  reality  and  power  of  the  devil 
as  a  source  of  wickedness  in  men  are  clearly  recognized  in 
the  discourses  under  review.  It  is  true  that  we  find  a 
somewhat  broad  and  loose  use  of  the  term  "  devil,"  accord- 
ing to  which  it  ma}^  be  applied  to  an  evil  man.  Judas  is 
called  a  '^deviy  (8m/3oXo?,  vi.  70),  that  is,  diabolical  in 
nature,  hostile  t^'-Ghrist.  This  reminds  us  of  the  appli- 
cation of  the  epithet  "Satan."  to  Peter  (Mk.  viii.  34;  Mt. 
xvi.  23).  In  the  other  cases  (of  which  there  are  but  two: 
viii.  44;  xiii.  2)  "the  devil"  means jbhe^rince  of  evil.  The 
first  of  these  is  the  more  explicit.  Jesus  is  rebuking  the 
Jews  for  their  insensibility  to  his  truth  and  their  hostility 
to  his  work.  In  the  midst  of  this  denunciation  he  cries 
out :  "  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and  the  lusts  of  your 
father  it  is  your  will  to  do.  He  was  a  murderer  from  the 
beginning,  and  stood  not  in  the  truth,  because  there  is  no 
truth  in  him.  When  he  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his 
own :  for  he  is  a  liar,  and  the  father  thereof  "(viii.  44). 

This  sonship  to  Satan  is  here  set  in  contrast  to  the  son- 
ship  to  God  which  the  Jews  claimed  for  themselves.  In 
both  instances  an  ethical  kinship  is  referred  to.  The  Jews 
show  that  they  are  not  truly  sons  of  God,  because  in  accus- 
ing and  opposing  Jesus  they  evince  their  unlikeness  to 
God  and  their  antipathy  to  his  supreme  self-revelation  in 
his  Son.  Nor  are  they,  in  this  deeper  ethical  sense,  sons 
of  Abraham.  In  disposition  and  action  they  are  totally 
unlike  him  (viii.  40).  Abraham  read  the  mind  and  will 
of  God  in  his  revelations ;  they,  on  the  contrary,  are  blind 
to  the  meaning  of  the  plainest  words  of  God.     Jesus  then 


THE    SINFUL    WORLD  195 

plainly  asserts  their  real  kinship  to  the  devil  whose  evil 
desires  they  are  disposed  to  obey. 

In  what  follows  we  have  the  fullest  characterization  of 
Satan  to  be  found  in  our  source.  He  is  described  (1)  as  a 
murderer  from  the  beginning,  (2)  as  not  standing  in  the 
truth,  and  (3)  as  a  liar  and  the  father  of  lying.  I  sliall 
briefly  consider  the  meaning  of  each  of  these  characteri- 
zations. Interpreters  are  divided  in  their  judgment  re- 
specting the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  a  murderer  from  the 
beginning"  (a7r'  apxr)^').  Some  suppose  it  to  refer  to  an 
agency  of  Satan  in  inciting  Cain  to  kill  his  brother.  On 
this  view  the  meaning  of  the  words  would  be  that  from 
the  infancy  of  the  race  Satan  has  been  inciting  men  to 
murderous  thoughts  and  deeds.  The  principal  objection 
to  this  view  is  that  in  the  Old  Testament  narrative  (Gen. 
iv.  3  s^.)  the  murder  of  Abel  by  Cain  is  not  attributed  to 
Satan's  instigation.  Nor  does  this  interpretation  seem  to 
yield  an  idea  which  quite  matches  the  other  elements  of 
the  description.  Others  would  take  air'  apxr}^  absolutely 
—  a  view  which  would  imply  either  that  God  had  created 
Satan  evil  from  the  beginning  of  his  existence,  or  that  an 
evil  being  had  always  existed  alongside  of  the  eternally 
good  Deity.  Still  others  explain  a7r'  apxrj^  as  meaning 
from  Satan's  beginning  as  Satan,  that  is,  from  the  time  of 
his  fall  from  holiness.  The  former  of  these  two  interpreta- 
tions is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  dualism  which  is 
recognized  in  John,  as  we  shall  see  a  little  later  on ;  the 
latter  does  not  accord  well  with  the  natural  meaning  of  the 
word  "murderer"  which,  it  would  seem,  limits  utt'  apxr)^ 
to  the  field  of  human  life  and  experience.  Moreover,  this 
view  finds  no  support  in  the  Johannine  writings  elsewhere 
since  they  make  no  allusion  to  a  fall  of  Satan. 

The  phrase  is  most  naturally  understood  as  a  reference 
to  the  temptation  in  which  Satan,  in  the  form  of  a  ser- 
pent (Gen.  iii.  1  s^.),  is  represented  as  causing  the  fall  of 
man.  In  this  case,  the  words  would  describe  Satan  as 
having  been  an  agent  of  man's  moral  destruction,  a  foe  to 
God's  beneficent  designs  from  the  beginning  of  the  human 
race.     It  is  quite  in  this  spirit  of  Satan  that  the  Jews  are 


196  THE   JOHANNINE    TEACHING    OF    JESUS 

now  seeking  to  destroy  Jesus  and  to  thwart  his  work  for 
mankind.  This  portion  of  our  passage  certainly  presup- 
poses the  real  existence  of  a  spirit  of  evil  who  acts  a  great 
part  in  the  drama  of  human  history,  but  contains  no  sug- 
gestions respecting  Satan's  origin  or  fall. 

The  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  stood  not  in  the  truth,"  etc. 
"(eV  T^  aXrjOeia  ouk  eari-jfcev)^  is,  at  least,  slightly  affected 
by  the  way  in  which  earrj/cev  is  punctuated.  If  written 
eaT7)Kev^  as  by  Westcott  and  Hort,  the  verb  would  be  the 
imperfect  of  the  late  and  inferior  verb  ctttJ/c&j,  and  should 
be  rendered  as  in  the  Revised  Version,  "stood  not,"  did 
not  remain  firm  or  steadfast,  in  the  truth.  If,  however, 
with  Tischendorf,  Meyer,  Weiss,  and  Holtzmann,  we 
punctuate  it  with  the  rough  breathing,  earrj/cev,  we  have 
then  the  perfect  of  lo-ttj/jll  with  the  force  of  the  present, 
and  the  meaning  is,  "  he  does  not  stand  in  the  truth,"  the 
realm  of  truth  is  foreign  to  his  life.  With  the  former 
punctuation  it  is  possible  to  regard  the  phrase  as  most 
patristic  and  Roman  Catholic  interpreters  do,  a,s  referring 
to  a  fall  of  Satan.  In  my  judgment,  the  reading  earrjKev 
is  decidedly  to  be  preferred,  both  on  the  ground  of  usage  ^ 
and  of  suitability  of  meaning  to  the  context.  This  phrase, 
then,  simply  asserts  the  utter  falseness  of  Satan. 

Respecting  the  third  phrase,  "for  he  is  a  liar  and  the 
father  thereof "  (^otl  -y^evarr]^  iarlv  kol  6  iraryp  avrov^, 
the  view  has  been  taken  by  some  modern  interpreters  ^ 
that  avTou  relates  specifically  to  'y^evcrrr]^^  and  that  o  war'^p 
is  not  in  apposition  to  -ylrevarr]^,  but  refers  to  another  per- 
son. In  this  case  the  meaning  would  be :  He  (Satan)  is  a 
liar,  and  so  is  his  father.  This  same  idea  of  tlie  father  of 
the  devil  is  also  found  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  where 
L'/xet?  i/c  Tov  7raTpo<;  rod  StafioXov  iare  is  rendered :  Ye  are 
from  the  father  of  the  devil.  Grammatically  considered, 
both  these  renderings  are  possible.  Tlie  contention  of 
those  who  adopt  this  interpretation  is  that  we  have  here 

1  The  imperfect  ea-TrjKev  is  nowhere  else  found,  unless  it  be  (so  W.  and 
H.)  in  Rev.  xii.  4,  where  all  other  editors,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to 
ascertain,  punctuate  ea-TTjKev.     Here,  too,  the  Revisers  follow  W.  and  H, 

^  E.g.  Volkniar,  Hilgenfeld,  0.  Holtzmann. 


THE   SINFUL   ^yORLD  197 

a  reflection  of  the  Gnostic  demonology  which  represents 
the  Demiurge,  the  inferior  God  of  the  Jews,  as  really  the 
father  of  the  devil.  This  is  an  item  in  the  proof  of  the 
late  origin  and  speculative  character  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
liut  the  monstrous  idea  which  this  interpretation  finds  here 
is  absolutely  foreign  to  our  Gospel  and  to  the  whole  Bible. 
It  finds  no  confirmation  in  the  context.  'AuroO  should  be 
understood  as  referring  to  -^evcm]';  genericall}^  conceived : 
The  father  of  the  liar,  whoever  he  may  be,  —  or  to  the  idea 
of  i/reO^o?,  previously  expressed,  and  implied  in  ^^revaTT]^} 
H.  J.  Holtzmann  aptly  says  :  "  We  owe  to  a  carelessness  of 
style  this  interesting  discovery  of  a  fatlier  of  the  devil,  very 
much  as  we  owe  to  an  oversight  of  the  compiler  of  the 
hymn-book  the  idea  of  the  devil's  widow."  ^  The  phrase 
in  question  is  to  be  understood  simply  as  a  more  particu- 
lar explanation  of  the  general  statement,  made  just  before, 
that  Satan  does  not  live  in  the  element  of  truth,  but  in 
that  of  falsehood. 

We  have  already  seen  that  in  the  Synoptic  report  of 
Jesus'  teaching  Satan  is  several  times  spoken  of.  He  ap- 
pears at  the  beginning  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  and  seeks  to 
divert  him  from  his  Messianic  calling  (Mt.  iv.  1-11).  He 
catches  away  the  good  seed  (Mk.  iv.  15),  and  desires 
to  test  Peter  (Lk.  xxii.  31).  We  saw  that  while  such 
passages  recognize  Satan's  existence  and  activity,  they  are 
more  figurative,  that  is,  less  definite  and  didactic,  than  is 
commonly  supposed.  He  is  even  pictorially  described  as 
falling  "like  lightning  from  heaven"  (Lk.  x.  17).  But 
from  neither  form  of  the  gospel  tradition  can  we  derive 
more  than  the  idea  of  a  causative  agency  of  Satan  in  the 
sinfulness  of  mankind.  Sin  is  presented  as  alliance  with 
Satan,  as  kinship  of  spirit  with  him.  Beyond, this  general 
idea  no  explanation  of  the  origin  and  development  of  sin 
is  offered  in  the  tradition  of  our  Lord's  words. 

Sin  is  always  represented  in  the  Johannine  discourses  as 

1  A  similar  construction  is  found  in  ix.  31,  where  avrov  refers,  not  to 
Oeoae^ris,  but  to  the  Oeos  in  the  previous  phrase. 

2  Hand-Commentar,  in  loco.  See  the  Autobiography  of  F.  W.  Krum- 
macher  (Eng.  trans.,  New  York,  1869),  pp.  308,  304. 


198  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

a  voluntary  affair.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  temp- 
tations inciting  to  sin  from  without,  it  is  considered  as 
caused  by  him  who  commits  it.  There  is  a  dualism  of 
light  and  darkness  in  the  world,  but  the  darkness. is. nhosen 
by  those  who  walk  in  it  (iii.  19).  God  is  the  source  of 
the  light  only,  not  of  the  darkness.  Men  would  possess 
and  enjoy  the  light  if  they  loved  and  followed  it.  It  is 
light  and  not  darkness  which  is  primary  aiid  fundamental 
in  the  universe.  Sin  is  never  represented  as  an  essential 
or  eternal  principle.  Sin  is  a  perversion  due  to  free  per- 
sonal action.  .No  duality  of  good  and  evil  as  coeternal 
powers  is  recognized  in  our  sources.  The  dualism  of  these 
discourses,  as  of  John's  own  teaching,  is  ethical,  not  meta- 
physical. It  is  a  conflict  of  opposing  moral  principles  and 
powers.  The  sons  of  light  are  those  who  choose  and  pur- 
sue love,  truth,  and  goodness  ;  those  who  walk  in  darkness 
do  so  freely  and  with  full  responsibility.  The  world  is  a 
realm  of  freedom;  its  go^d  is  praiseworthy;  its  evil  is 
equally  blameworthy.  Sin  is  not  viewed  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  as  due  to  the  action  of  an  evil  deity  as  original 
and  powerful  as  God  himself,  or  as  consisting  in  a  meta- 
physical imperfection  inhering  in  the  very  constitution  of 
the  universe,  but  as  a  wilful  and  guilty  disobedience  of  the 
supreme  law  of  righteousness,  a  violation  of  man's  true 
nature,  and  a  forfeiture  of  his  divine  destiny. 


CHAPTER  IV 

JESUS'  TESTIMONY  TO  HIMSELF 

The  titles  "  Son  of  man  "  and  "  Son  of  God  "  which  we 
have  studied  in  the  Synoptics  are  both  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  the  fourth  Gospel.  We  will  here  consider  the 
way  in  which  these  terms  are  used  in  the  sayings  of  Jesus. 
To  Nathaniel  he  says  that  heaven  will  be  opened  and  that 
angels  will  descend  upon  the  Son  of  man  (i.  51)  —  evi- 
dently a  figurative  way  of  saying,  with  an  allusion  to  Gen. 
xxviii.  12,  that  in  him  communication  between  heaven  and 
earth  is  established.  He  speaks  of  himself  as  the  Son  of 
man  who  descended  from  heaven  and  who  is  now  in  heaven 
(iii.  13),  that  is,  belongs  to  heaven  as  his  native  sphere.^ 
The  Son  of  man  is  the  dispenser  of  eternal  life  (vi.  27,  53), 
must  be  lifted  up  on  the  cross  (iii.  14;  viii.  28),  shall 
ascend  to  heaven  where  he  was  before  (vi.  62 ;  xii.  23 ; 
xiii.  31),  and  shall  judge  the  world  (v.  27). 

We  observe  that  here,  as  in  the  Synoptics,  the  title  is 
used  by  Jesus  only.  It  evidently  designates  for  his  mind 
something  that  is  characteristic  and  unique  in  his  person- 
ality and  mission.  The  use  of  it  accords  well  with  the 
conclusion  which  we  reached  when  studying  the  Synoptic 
passages  in  which  it  is  employed,  namely,  that  it  is  a  name 
for  the  founder  and  head  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  and 
thus  a  veiled  designation  of  the  Messiah.  The  Johannine 
description  of  the  Son  of  man   as  bestowing  eternal  life 

1  Attention  should,  however,  be  called  to  the  fact  that  preponderating 
external  authority  (including  i^BL)  is  against  the  genuineness  of  the  words : 
6  uv  €v  ry  ovpav<^.  W.  and  H.  regarded  the  phrase  as  a  Western  gloss, 
perhaps  suggested  by  i.  18.  It  is  retained  by  Tischendorf,  Meyer,  Weiss, 
and  Beyschlag  (per  contra,  Wendt).  Weiss  regards  6  wv  as  equivalent  to 
osT)v —  "  who  was  with  the  Father  "  before  the  incarnation.  But  on  this 
view  the  w^ords  would  be  almost  identical  in  meaning  with  the  previous 
clause  :  6  e/c  tov  ovpavoO  /cara^ds. 

199 


200  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

(vi.  27)  corresponds  to  the  Synoptic  representation  that  the 
Son  of  man  forgives  sins  (Mk.  ii.  10)  and  seeks  and  saves 
that  which  is  lost  (Lk.  xix.  10).  Eating  the  flesh  and 
drinking  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  man  seems  to  be  a  mysti- 
cal way  of  depicting  the  believing  acceptance  and  appro- 
priation of  Christ  in  heart  and  life  which  the  Synoptic 
discourses  so  often  emphasize  (e.g.  in  Mt.  xi.  28-30).  The 
lifting  up  of  the  Son  of  man  on  the  cross  (iii.  14 ;  viii.  28) 
is  the  Johannine  counterpart  of  the  second  group  of  pas- 
sages (see  p.  41)  in  which  the  Synoptists  describe  the 
necessity  of  his  sufferings  and  death  (e.g.  Mk.  viii.  31 ; 
ix.  31 ;  xiv.  21).  In  the  Synoptics  we  found  the  correla- 
tive of  this  doctrine  of  the  suffering  and  dying  Messiah  in 
the  teaching  concerning  his  majesty.  After  his  death  he 
should  be  exalted  to  the  throne  of  power  and  glory  in 
heaven  whence  he  would  come  to  judge  the  world  (Mt. 
xxiv.  31 ;  XXV.  31).  The  analogue  to  this  idea  also  is 
found  in  the  fourth  Gospel  where  Jesus  speaks  of  his 
ascension  to  heaven,  of  his  glorification  at  the  Father's 
side  (xii.  23 ;  xvii.  5),  and  of  his  authority  to  execute 
judgment  "  because  he  is  the  Son  [or,  a  Son]  of  man  " 
(uio?  dvOpcoTTov ;  v.  27).  As  the  One  who  founds  the 
Kingdom  of  heaven  upon  earth,  who  presents  eternal  life 
to  men  by  bringing  to  them  a  living  revelation  of  God  in 
human  form,  the  Son  of  man  must  judge  men ;  his  truth 
must  test  them  and  determine  their  place  in  the  scale  of 
moral  being.  Thus  our  source  reflects  the  same  contrast 
between  the  humiliation  and  the  dignity  of  the  Son  of  man, 
and  suggests  the  same  method  of  reconciling  the  apparent 
contradiction.  The  life  of  lowliest  condescension  proves 
to  be  the  life  of  supreme  exaltation.  Tlie  way  of  the  cross 
is  the  way  to  the  throne  of  the  world.  The  seeming  incon- 
sistency disappears  in  a  higher  unity.  The  testimony  of 
Jesus  concerning  himself  which  stands  connected  with  the 
title  "  Son  of  man  "  is  thus  in  substance  the  same  in  both 
forms  of  our  gospel  tradition. 

The  doctrine  of  Jesus'  sonship  to  God  is  most  fully  set 
forth  in  three  of  his  discourses :  (1)  that  of  which  the  con- 
versation with  Nicodemus  was  the  occasion  (iii.  16-21)  ; 


JESUS'  TESTIMONY  TO  HIMSELF  201 

(2)  that  in  which  he  justified  his  healing  a  man  on  the 
sabbath,  and  further  explained  and  defended  his  divine 
mission  (v.  16-47)  ;  and  (3)  the  discourse  on  the  bread  of 
life  (vi.  32-58).  Several  briefer  passages  are  also  important 
Qe.g.  viii.  56-58;  x.  30,  38;  xiv.  11  ;  xvii.  5).  We  will 
review  these  discourses  in  order. 

In  the  first  discourse  the  main  idea  is  that  the  Son  is  the/ 
bearer  of  salvation  to  the  world,  the  light  which  shines  in) 
its  darkness,  thereby  testing  men  and  determining  their 
divine  acceptance  or  rejection  according  to  the  attitude 
Avhich  they  assume  towards  himself.  The  Son  is  the 
Saviour;  belief  on  him  secures  eternal  life ;  rejection  of 
him  entails  condemnation  at  the  bar  of  the  divine  judg- 
ment. Whatever  be  the  relation  between  the  Son  and  the 
Father  underlying  these  representations,  it  is  certain  that 
the  Son  is  the  representative  of  God,  the  embodiment  of 
the  divine  light  and  love  in  such  a  sense  that  the  attitude 
of  men  towards  him  involves  their  attitude  towards  God 
(^cf.  V.  23)  and  is  decisive  of  the  favor  or  disfavor  of 
heaven.  Twice  the  intimacy  of  this  relation  between 
the  Son  and  the  Father  is  emphasized  by  the  application 
to  the  former  of  the  term  "only  begotten"  (fiovoyev >]<;}} 
This  word  is  in  all  cases  applied  to  the  incarnate  Son  of 
God  and  accentuates  the  uniqueness  of  his  sonship.  "  The 
only  begotten  Son "  cannot  imply  less  than  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  in  a  different  sense  from  that  in 
which  men  become  sons  of  God.  It  distinguishes  him  as 
One  who,  in  the  meaning  of  the  title  "Son  of  God"  as 
applied  to  him,  has  no  brethren.  Whatever  the  nature 
of  his  sonship,  it  is  unique  and  incomparable ;  it  is  shared 
by  no  other.2 

In  the  next  discourse  (v.  16-47)  Jesus  asserts  the  per- 

1  This  term  is  used  by  John  in  three  other  passages  in  application  to 
Christ :  i.  14,  18 ;  I.  iv.  9.  This  use  of  the  word  to  characterize  Christ's 
sonship  is  peculiar  to  John's  writings. 

2  Even  Wendt  (Teaching  of  Jesus,  II.  151  sq.;  orig.  p.  450  sq.)  and 
Beyschlag  (N.  T.  Theol.  1.  242,  243  ;  Bk.  II.  ch.  iii.  §  3)  admit  that 
Jesus  is  described  in  our  source  as  Son  of  God  in  a  unique  and  preemi- 
nent sense.  This  they  explain,  however,  as  mvolving  only  a  preeminent 
human  perfection  and  a  unique  mission. 


202  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

\fect  accord  of  bis  work  with  the  Father's  will  and  nature. 
The  work  of  the  Father  and  that  of  the  Son  are  essentially 
one.  The  Son  doeth  nothing  from  (aTrd)  himself;  "for 
the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  showeth  him  all  things 
that  himself  doeth  "  (v.  20).  Then  follows  a  description 
of  the  work  of  the  Son.  It  includes  the  bestowment  of 
spiritual  life  (y.  21),  the  execution  of  judgment  (^vv. 
22-24),  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  (vv.  25-29). 
The  remainder  of  the  discourse  (vv.  30-47)  enforces  the 
divine  attestation  of  his  mission  from  God. 

The  discourse  on  the  bread  of  life  (vi.  32-58)  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  (vi.  1-14).  When  a 
multitude  followed  him  in  the  hope  of  securing  a  further 
supply,  Jesus  urged  them  to  seek  from  him  rather  the 
spiritual  food  which  he  had  come  to  bestow.  To  their 
question  as  to  what  he  meant  that  they  should  do,  he  re- 
plied that  they  should  believe  on  him  whom  God  had  sent 
(^v.  29).  They  then  called  for  the  credentials  of  his  divine 
mission  —  some  sign  which  should  authenticate  his  claim 
as  the  giving  of  manna  attested  the  providential  leadership 
of  Moses  (vv.  30,  31.)  To  this  request  the  discourse  in 
question  is  the  reply.  Jesus  begins  by  contrasting  the 
manna  which  supplied  only  the  physical  wants  of  the  pres- 
ent with  the  heavenly  bread  of  life  which  he  gives  and 
which  meets  the  deep  and  permanent  needs  of  the  soul. 
The  true  bread  from  heaven  God  is  now  giving  them;  it 
is  himself.  Those  who  eat  this  bread,  that  is,  those  who 
inwardly  appropriate  him  in  their  hearts,  shall  have  life 
spiritual  and  eternal.  When  the  Jews  murmured  at  these 
sayings,  he  explained  that  those  only  who  had  a  predispo- 
sition to  spiritual  things  would  appreciate  his  truth  or 
receive  him ;  those  only  whose  spiritual  natures  had  been 
quickened  —  who  had  some  kinship  of  spirit  to  God  — 
would  welcome  him  who  came  from  God  and  perfectly 
represented  the  divine  will  and  nature  (vv.  44-46).  The 
rest  of  the  discourse  (yv.  52-58)  contains  that  mystical 
description  of  the  appropriation  of  Christ  under  the  figures 
of  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood  whose  meaning 
may  best  be  considered  in  another  connection. 


JESUS'  TESTIMONY  TO  HIMSELF         203 

vThe  uniqueness  of  Jesus'  relation  to  the  Father  is 
strongly  asserted  in  his  address  to  the  Jews  recorded  in 
the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Gospel.  He  here  declares  that 
lie  came  forth  from  God  (v.  42)  and  knows  him  (v.  55)  ;  he 
maintains  his  sinlessness  (v.  46),  and  concludes  by  saying 
that  his  own  being  antedates  the  birth  of  Abraham  (v.  58). 
On  another  occasion  in  a  similar  disputation  with  his  crit- 
ics he  affirms  that  he  and  the  Father  are  one  (x.  30)  ; 
that  is,  they  cooperate  perfectl}^  in  all  that  concerns  the  sal- 
vation of  men.  A  perfect  fellowship  of  life,  purpose,  and 
work  exists  between  them.  He  is  in  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  in  him  (x.  38 ;  xiv.  11),  so  that  he  who  has  seen  the 
Son  has  seen  the  Father  also  (xiv.  9),  because  the  Son  per- 
fectly embodies  and  reveals  the  Father's  will.  In  the  in- 
tercessory prayer  he  again  refers  to  this  perfect  ethical 
union  between  the  Father  and  himself  as  the  true  type  of 
the  union  which  should  exist  among  his  disciples  (xvii. 
21),  although  he  also  refers  to  the  glory  which  he  pos- 
sessed in  fellowship  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was 
(xvii.  5).  This  passage  seems  clearly  to  involve  an 
incomparable  relation  which  he  sustained  to  the  Father, 
since  no  similar  language  is  anywhere  applied  to  any  other 
person. 

In  reviewing  the  Synoptic  teaching  concerning  Jesus' 
sonship  to  God  we  saw  that  his  preferred  self-designation 
was  "  Son  of  man  "  and  that  the  title  "  Son  of  God  "  was 
chiefly  applied  to  him  by  others.     But  we  also  saw  that  he 
did  recognize  the  latter  title  as  applicable  to  himself  by  the 
way  in  which  he  spoke  of  God  as  "  the  Father,"  and  espe- 
cially by  the  correlation  of  "the  Son"  with  "the  Father" 
in  the  passages,  Mt.  xi.  27  (Lk.  x.  22)  and  Mk.  xiii.  32.     A    ^ 
noticeable  point  of  difference  in  this  respect  is  that  in  the     \ 
Johannine  discourses  Jesus  frequently  applies  this  title  to      ^ 
himself.     The  title  "  Son  of  man  "  is  used  only  by  himself, 
as  in  the  Synoptics,  but  it  is  relatively  less  used;  the  title 
"Son  of  God"  is  applied  to  him  both  by  himself  ^  and  ,b^ 
others,  but,  according  to  John,  is  much  more  freely  used 

1  This  he  sometimes  does  by  implication,  and  in  other  instances  he 
uses  only  the  shortened  form  "  the  Son." 


204  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

by  liim  than  the  Synoptists  would  lead  us  to  suppose. 
This  fact  may  be  due  to  John's  reproducing  more  fully 
the  implications  of  Jesus'  self-testimo-n^.  There  is,  no 
doubt,  a  difference  of  emphasis  upon  the  sonship  of  Jesus 
to  God  in  the  two  forms  of  our  gospel  tradition.  John's 
..version  of  our  Lord's  teaching  brings  into  stronger  relief 
the  unique  and  inscrutable  relation  of  Christ  as  Son  to 
the  Father.  But  there  is  no  essential  difference  in  mean- 
ing between  his  sonship  as  represented  in  John  and  that 
which  the  Synoptists  recognize. 

We  observed  that  in  the  first  three  Gospels  there  is  no 
passage  in  which  Jesus  classes  himself  along  with  other 
men  as  a  Son  of  God  in  the  same  sense  in  which  they  are 
sons  of  God,  and  that,  accordingly,  he  uses  the  terms  "  my 
Father,"  "  your  Father,"  not  "  our  Father,"  in  referring  to 
the  divine  fatherhood.  The  same  care  in  the  use  of  words 
is  observed  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  two  sources  are 
thus  perfectly  at  one  in  ascribing  a  unique  sonship  to  Jesus. 
God's  fatherhood,  in  its  relation  to  him,  meant  something 
more  than  it  meant  in  its  relation  to  others.  God  was  his 
Father,  and  God  was  their  Father,  but  not  in  the  same 
sense.  The  fourth  Gospel  accents  this  distinction  by 
naming  Christ  the  "only  begotten"  Son,  but  in  so  doing 
it  merely  designates  by  a  special  word  a  peculiarity  of 
Christ's  person  and  relation  to  God  which  the  language  of 
the  Synoptics  is  also  scrupulously  careful  to  recognize. 

In  both  forms  of  the  evangelical  tradition  the  title  retains 
its  historical  basis.  It  denotes  one  who  is  the  special 
object  of  God's  complaisant  love.  The  relation  to  God 
which  it  emphasizes  is  not  primarily  ontological,  but  ethi- 
cal. It  denotes  a  reciprocal  and  dynamic  fellowship.  The 
title,  though  not  a  common  synonym  for  "Messiah"  among 
the  Jews,  was  peculiarly  appropriate  for  the  Messianic 
King,  the  Founder  of  the  divine  Kingdom  on  earth.  Ac- 
cordingly, in  John,  we  find  his  sonship  to  God  most  empha- 
sized in  those  discourses  in  which  he  is  explaining  and 
defending  his  saving  mission  to  earth.  As  "  eternal  life  " 
may  be  called  the  Johannine  counterpart  of  the  Synoptic 
"  Kingdom  of  God,"  so  we  find  that  in  the  fourth  Gospel 


JESUS'  TESTIMONY  TO  HIMSELF  205 

Christ's  sonship  is  most  closely  correlated  with  the  bestow- 
ment  of  eternal  life,  as  in  the  Synoptics  it  is  most  associated 
with  his  Messianic  mission  as  the  Founder  of  the  Kingdom. 
But  while  the  title  has  thus  a  certain  kinship  to  "  Messiah," 
it  appears  to  have  been  rather  a  personal  than  an  official 
title.  His  messiahship  was  grounded  in  his  sonship  to 
God.  The  former  term  describes  the  mission  to  Avhich  he 
was  appointed  ;  the  latter  his  fitness  for  that  mission.  He 
could  be  the  Messiah  because  he  was  the  Son  of  God  par 
Sminence.  Hence,  when  in  our  source  he  emphasizes  his 
sonship  to  God  in  connection  with  his  work,  it  is  because 
that  work  for  men  is  grounded  in  what  he  is ;  his  saving 
work  as  Son  of  God  is  always  conceived  of  as  being  possible 
because  of  that  inscrutable  personal  relation  to  God  which 
his  sonship  involves. 

When,  therefore,  we  trace  the  roots  of  this  idea  of  son- 
ship  and  observe  the  marked  peculiarities  of  emphasis  and 
language  which  the  Gospels  exhibit  in  the  presentation  of 
it,  we  are  constrained  to  conclude  that  it  expresses  not  so 
much  a  historic  function  or  vocation  as  a  nature  or  char- 
acter which  is  fundamental  in  the  personality  of  Christ. 

Before  pursuing  further  the  inquiry  into  the  nature  of 
Jesus'  sonship  to  God,  we  must  consider  the  import  of  the 
passages  which  speak  of  his  preexistence.  Those  which 
are  of  most  importance  are  vi.  62 :  "  What  then  if  ye 
should  behold  the  Son  of  man  ascending  where  he  was 
before?"  viii.  58:  "Jesus  said  unto  them.  Verily,  verily, 
1  say  unto  you.  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  am  "  (irplv 
Kppad^  yeveaOai  iyco  el/xi^  ;  xvii.  5 :  "  And  now,  O  Father, 
glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self  Qirapa  aeavra),  at  thy 
side)  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the 
world  was,"  and  xvii.  24 :  "  For  thou  lovedst  me  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world."  A  number  of  recent  writers 
have  advocated  the  opinion  that  these  passages  refer  not 
to  an  actual  but  to  an  ideal  existence  of  Christ  with  God 
before  his  earthly  life.  Some  seek  to  justify  this  conclu- 
sion by  exegesis,  some  by  general  historical  considerations, 
and  still  others  by  a  combination  of  the  two.^     Wendt  and 

1  For  a  sketch  of  the  views  of  Harnack,  Baldensperger,  and  Bornemann, 
see  Orr's  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World,  1893,  pp.  508-510. 


206  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

Beyschlag  approach  the  subject  from  the  standpoint  of 
Biblical  Theology,  and  I  will  therefore  select  their  discus- 
sions for  a  brief  description  and  review. 

Wendt  thinks  that  Jesus  "  came  forth  from  God  "  (xvi. 
28)  only  in  a  figurative  sense,  as  his  disciples  were  not 
''from  this  world"  (xv.  19)  and  as  the  Jews  were  "from 
the  devil"  (viii.  44).  Believers  are  also  described  as 
being  from  God  (I.  iv.  4)  or  as  born  from  above  (iii.  7). 
Jesus'  claim  to  have  been  sent  forth  from  God  means,  on 
this  view,  that  he  was  chosen  by  God  for  a  special  work. 
The  pre  existence  asserted  in  viii.  58  was  an  ideal  pre- 
existence  only.  As  Abraham's  vision  of  Messiah's  day 
was  only  ideal,  so  the  existence  of  Messiah  at  the  time 
was  only  in  the  plan  or  purpose  of  God.  The  saying  in 
the  intercessory  prayer  (xvii.  5)  Wendt  explains  after  the 
analogy  of  those  passages  which  represent  rewards  as 
stored  up  for  men  in  heaven  (Mt.  v.  12 ;  vi.  20,  etc.). 
Such  rewards  have  no  real,  but  only  an  ideal,  existence ; 
they  exist  in  the  divine  mind  or  intention.  In  like  man- 
ner the  Son  existed  before  his  earthly  life  began  in  the 
divine  destination  only.  The  glory  which  he  had  with 
the  Father  was  an  ideal  glory  which  the  Father  destined 
for  him.  Wendt  admits  that  this  language  could  not 
have  this  meaning  as  we  moderns  use  words.  For  us  the 
terms  would  signify  real  preexistence,  but  not  according 
to  a  method  of  thinking  and  speaking  which  is  current  in 
the  New  Testament.  "  According  to  the  mode  of  speech 
and  conception  prevalent  in  the  New  Testament,  a  heav- 
enly good,  and  so  also  a  heavenly  glory,  can  be  conceived 
and  spoken  of  as  existing  with  God  and  belonging  to 
a  person,  not  because  this  person  already  exists  and  is 
invested  with  glory,  but  because  the  glory  of  God  is  in 
some  way  deposited  and  preserved  for  this  person  in 
heaven."  ^ 

To  this  interpretation  I  would  present  the  following 
objections :  ^    (1)   The  language  which   Jesus  applies   to 

1  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II.  169  (orig.  p,  465). 

2  I  have  more  fully  reviewed  Wendt's  arguments  in  Tlie  Joliannine 
Theology,  pp.  115-122. 


JESUS'  TESTIMONY  TO  HIMSELF         207 

himself  is  entirely  unique.  In  saying  that  others  are 
"from  the  world"  or  ''from  God"  he  refers,  as  the  con- 
nection clearly  shows,  to  ethical  likeness.  But  he  never 
says  of  any  other  than  himself  that  he  abode  at  the 
Father's  side  before  the  world  existed,  sharing  his  glory, 
and  that  the  Father  sent  him  into  the  world.  Nor  is  there 
any  indication  in  the  context  of  any  of  the  relevant  pas- 
sages that  their  language  is  figurative.  (2)  Wendt's 
interpretation  of  viii.  58  does  not  suit  the  connection  of 
thought  in  which  it  stands.  To  the  assertion  of  Jesus 
that  Abraham  saw  his  day  (y.  5Q}^  the  Jews  reply  that 
Abraham  lived  centuries  ago,  while  he  is  not  yet  fifty 
years  old  (f.  57).  They  would  thus  involve  him  in 
what  was  to  them  the  absurdity  of  claiming  that  he  coex- 
isted with  Abraham.  Jesus  meets  the  objection  squarely 
by  asserting  not  only  that  he  existed  when  Abraham  lived, 
but  that  he  existed  before  Abraham  was  born.  Nothing 
but  a  reference  to  real  personal  preexistence  in  the  answer 
of  Jesus  fits  the  meaning  of  the  objection  which  called  it 
forth.  (3)  The  supposed  analogy  between  xvii.  5  and 
passages  like  Mt.  v.  12  and  vi.  20  is  very  remote.  In  the 
latter  Jesus  speaks  of  the  rewards  of  his  disciples  as  ex- 
isting in  advance  in  heaven,  but  he  does  not  speak  of 
the  disciples  themselves  as  preexisting.  In  the  former  he 
does  not  merely  speak  of  his  glory  as  stored  up  for  him 
in  heaven,  but  of  himself  as  already  possessing  that  glory 
at  the  Father's  side  before  the  world  was.  If  he  had  said 
that  his  disciples  preexisted  in  the  enjoyment  of  heavenly 
bliss,  he  would  have  said  something  analogous  to  xvii.  5. 
In  order  to  have  furnished  the  analogy  which  Wendt 
seeks  to  find,  Jesus  should  either  have  said  in  this  pas- 
sage that  his  glory  preexisted,  or  in  the  other  passages  that 
his  disciples  preexisted.  (4)  The  argument  from  the 
alleged  prevalence  in  antiquity  of  the  idea  of  preexistence 
is  precarious,  and  would  often  prove  too  much.  The  New 
Testament  writers  exhibit  no  tendency  to  overwork  that 
idea.  Unless  this  be  an  example,  they  exhibit  no  confu- 
sion in  their  language  between  ideal  and  real  preexistence. 
The  idea  of  God's  purpose  was  indeed  strong  among  the 


208  THE  JOHANNINE  TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

Jews.  The  careers  and  characters  of  men  are  often  spoken 
of  in  the  New  Testament  as  divinely  purposed,  but  the 
writers  do  not  therefore  speak  of  the  preexistence  of  the 
persons  in  question,  or  show  that  they  confused  the  totally 
different  conceptions  of  real  and  ideal  existence.  The 
destinies  of  men  may  be  conceived  as  existing  ideally  in 
God's  purpose,  but  I  know  of  no  instance  in  which  this 
idea  is  confounded  with  that  of  the  personal,  much  less 
the  eternal,  preexistence  of  the  men  themselves.  Who 
ever  imagined  that  the  author  of  Hebrews  (viii.  5)  sup- 
posed the  tabernacle  to  have  really  existed  in  heaven 
before  it  was  constructed  on  earth?  Jesus  doubtless 
spoke  of  his  perfected  Kingdom  as  already  prepared  for 
his  disciples  in  God's  purpose  (Mt.  xxv.  34) ;  yet  he  did 
not  say :  "  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the 
Kingdom  in  which  you  have  participated  from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world." 

Beyschlag  has  adopted  a  somewhat  different  method 
in  the  effort  to  establish  a  conclusion  similar  to  that  of 
Wendt.  The  expressions  of  Jesus  which  seem  to  assert 
his  preexistence  were  all  spoken  in  "very  agitated  mo- 
ments" of  his  life.  Jesus  was  under  the  spell  of  the 
current  idea  of  preexistence.  How  natural  that  he  should 
think  of  himself  as  preexisting  in  God's  purpose,  just  as 
the  tabernacle  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  preexisted.  Espe- 
cially would  he  so  express  himself  in  "  excited  moments  " 
when  he  attained  the  most  vivid  vision  of  his  divine  call- 
ing. But  does  not  the  language  of  Jesus  in  the  Johannine 
discourses  speak  of  a  real,  and  not  merely  of  an  ideal,  pre- 
existence? Beyschlag  gives  a  twofold  answer:  (1)  We 
cannot  assume  that  John  has  given  a  verbatim  report  of 
Jesus'  actual  language;  (2)  the  distinction  between  ideal 
and  real  existence  is  a  modern  one,  and  is  not  applicable  in 
the  interpretation  of  Biblical  language.  Our  author  then 
takes  up  the  passages.  When  Jesus  speaks  of  the  Son  of 
man  ascending  up  where  he  was  before  (vi.  62),  he  implies 
that  he  preexisted  as  the  Son  of  man.  Now  the  Messiah 
could  preexist  as  such  only  ideally.  Tlie  passage  "  Before 
Abraham  was  born,  I  am  "  (viii.  58)  may  be  interpreted, 


JESUS'    TESTIMONY   TO   HEMSELF  209 

says  Beyschlag,  according  to  any  preconception  which 
one  brings  to  it.  The  real  meaning  of  it  (when  it  is 
interpreted  without  any  preconception)  is :  Before  God 
thought  of  the  birth  of  Abraham,  he  purposed  my  mission. 
Respecting  xvii.  5  the  argument  is :  If  Jesus  had  here 
referred  to  a  glory  possessed  by  him  in  heaven  before  his 
incarnation,  he  could  not  now  ask  it  back  as  a  reward  of 
his  work,  as  he  does.  What  one  possesses  by  nature  he 
cannot  receive  as  a  reward.  This  "glory"  was  not  an 
eternal  possession,  but  the  reward  of  his  life-work  which 
the  theory  of  real  preexistence  absurdly  condemns  as  an 
"  empty  phantasmagoria."  Respecting  xvii.  24  our  author 
says  that  it  would  have  astonished  the  Biblical  writers  to 
be  told  that  God  can  love  only  a  real  person.  f)oes  not 
Jeremiah  (i.  5)  speak  of  God's  knowing  people  before 
their  birth,  and  Paul  (Eph.  i.  5)  of  his  choosing  men 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ?  The  meaning  is  that 
God  eternally  loved  Jesus  by  anticipation ;  that  he  loved 
the  idea  of  him  to  which  he  proposed  to  give  reality  in 
due  time  by  his  creation.^ 

This  exposition  encounters  the  same  general  difficulties 
as  that  of  Wendt.  I  will,  however,  offer  the  following 
additional  observations  in  regard  to  it:  (1)  It  would 
require  no  special  appeal  to  "  agitated "  or  "  excited  mo- 
ments "  of  Jesus'  life  to  explain  his  conviction  that  his 
life-work  was  the  realization  of  a  divine  ideal.  That  con- 
ception underlay  the  whole  life  of  Jesus.  Paul  enter- 
tained a  similar  conviction  respecting  his  own  life  even 
when  under  no  special  stress  of  excitement.  (2)  The 
two  answers  of  Bej^schlag  to  the  question :  Do  the  relevant 
passages  refer  to  a  real  preexistence  ?  would  lead  to  two 
very  different  solutions  of  the  problem.  The  first  would 
lead  to  the  view  that  Jesus  did  not  speak  of  a  real  pre- 
existence at  all,  though  John  has  represented  him  as  doing 
so.  The  second  would  involve  the  idea  that  even  if  Jesus 
did  use  the  language  attributed  to  him  by  John,  he  did 
not  intend  by  means  of  it  to  describe  real  preexistence. 
The  conclusion  first  suggested  is  that  Jesus  did  not  even 

1  iY.  T.  Tneol.  I.  250-255  (Bk.  II.  ch.  iii.  §§  6,  7,  8). 
P 


210  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

seem  to  speak  of  his  real  preexistence ;  that  next  sug- 
gested is  that  he  did  seem  to  do  so,  but  really  did  not. 
Beyschlag  wants  to  avail  himself  of  the  advantages  of 
these  two  entirely  different  suggestions.  If  one  will  not 
break  the  force  of  the  interpretation  which  derives  the  idea 
of  personal  preexistence  from  the  passages  in  question, 
perhaps  the  other  will.  And  yet  he  speaks  with  emphatic 
disapproval  of  those  who  bring  dogmatic  prepossessions  to 
the  interpretation  of  these  passages.  (3)  When  the  doc- 
trine of  real  preexistence  is  to  be  disproved,  Beyschlag 
favors  treating  the  language  of  John  in  the  freest  and 
loosest  manner;  but  when  occasion  requires  it  for  the 
establishment  of  the  opposite  view,  it  must  be  construed 
with  the  strictest  literal  severity.  The  statements  that 
Christ  existed  before  Abraham  was  born,  shared  the 
Father's  gior}^  and  was  the  object  of  his  love  before 
the  world  was  created,  are  only  loose  expressions  for  the 
notion  that  God  had  eternally  in  his  mind  an  idea  of 
bringing  such  a  person  as  Jesus  Christ  into  existence ; 
but  when  he  speaks  of  the  preexistence  of  the  Son  of  man 
we  must  have  no  loose  handling  of  words.  It  was  as  Son 
of  mmi  that  he  preexisted ;  but  that  could  only  be  in  an 
ideal  sense.  There  is  nothing  like  popular  speech  or 
accommodation  in  these  passages  so  far  as  they  favor  one 
conclusion  ;  there  is  nothing  else  in  them  —  not  even  a 
consciousness  of  the  "  modern "  distinction  between  the 
ideal  and  the  real  —  so  far  as  they  favor  another.  The 
strict  construction  which  Beyschlag  proposes  for  vi.  62 
would  hopelessly  ruin  his  whole  case  if  applied  to  viii.  58, 
xvii.  5,  and  xvii.  24.  It  should  hardly  need  be  said  that 
the  passage  which  speaks  of  the  Son  of  man  ascending 
where  he  was  before,  implies  only  the  continuity  and  pre- 
existence of  his  personality,  not  the  perpetuity  of  his  his- 
toric calling  as  Son  of  man.  If  Jesus  had  said  in  so  many 
words :  The  Messiah  preexisted,  who  (except  Beyschlag) 
would  ever  have  argued  that  this  could  only  mean  that  he 
preexisted  as  the  Messiah  of  the  Jewish  people.^    (4)  The 

1  If  I  say :  Professor  Dr.  Beyschlag  studied  theology  in  Bonn  and  Ber- 
lin from  1810  to  1844,  and  was  court-preacher  in  Karlsruhe  from  1867  to 


JESUS'  TESTIMONY  TO  HIMSELF  211 

considerations  which  Beyschlag  advances  as  determining 
the  interpretation  of  xvii.  5  and  24:  consist,  in  the  first 
instance,  of  a  dogmatic  inference,^  and,  in  the  second,  of 
an  argument  from  analogy.  Since,  on  Beyschlag's  own 
principles,  dogmatic  considerations  are  to  be  ruled  out,  and 
since  the  analogies  adduced  to  support  the  idealistic  inter- 
pretation of  xvii.  24  are  not  parallels,  I  am  content  to  set 
the  plain  words  of  these  verses  over  against  Beyschlag's  in- 
ference and  alleged  analogies  and  join  with  him  in  appeal- 
ing the  question  to  the  reader's  candor.  I  will  also  join  in 
his  protest  against  dogmatic  bias  in  exegesis ;  but  while  he 
warns  against  "  traditional "  prejudice,  I  will  ask  to  file  a 
caveat  against  "  critical "  prejudgment.  The  position  of 
those  who  hold  that  the  fourth  Gospel  attributes  to  Jesus 
a  doctrine  of  his  preexistence  which  he  probably  did  not 
hold,  or  which,  in  any  case,  is  not  true,^  appears  to  me  to 
be  much  more  straightforward  than  the  exegetical  ingenui- 
ties of  writers  like  Wendt  and  Beyschlag. 

When  we  compare  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  sonship  as 
found  in  the  fourth  Gospel  with  that  which  is  presented^ 
in  the  first  three,  we  observe  both  difference  and  likeness. 
The  preexistence  of  the  Soil  is  not  asserted  in  the  Synoptic 
discourses.  The  title  of  Son  is  less  frequently  heard  on 
the  lips  of  Jesus  himself,  and  his  references  to  his  sonship 
are  much  less  explicit  than  in  John.  The  more  frequent 
use  of  the  title  by  others  in  the  Synoptic  narratives  does 
not  enable  us  to  form  a  very  definite  idea  of  Jesus'  own 
conception  of  its  meaning.  From  an  examination  of  the 
Old  Testament  roots  of  the  conception  and  of  the  Synoptic 
use  of  the  title,  we  conclude  that  its  generic  idea  was  that 
of  one  uniquely  loved  or  chosen  by  God.  I  think  the  same 
notion  underlies  the  usage  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  Jesus 
claims  for  himself  a  unique  ethical  sonship  to  God  —  an 
incomparable  fellowship  Avith  the  Father.     The  Johannine 

I860,  who  would  insist  that  it  was  as  Professor  Dr.  Beyschlag  that  he  so 
studied  and  preached? 

1  ' '  Die  Frage  nach  dem  Verlhatniss  der  neuanzutretenden  Herrlichkeit 
zu  der  friiheren  (betont  von  Beyschlag,  I.  254  ;  Bk,  II.  ch.  iii.  §  8)  thut 
hier  nichts  zur  Sache."     (Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  II.  403.) 

2  See  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  II.  401-404. 


212  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

idea  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Synoptic  passage  whose 
"  Johannine  tone  "  has  been  already  remarked :  "All  things 
have  been  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father ;  and  no  one 
knoweth  the  Son,  save  the  Father ;  neither  doth  any  know 
the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
willeth  to  reveal  him"  (Mt.  xi.  27;  Lk.  x.  22).  The 
relation  of  Jesus  to  God  which  this  sonship  denotes  is, 
according  to  both  forms  of  teaching,  absolutely  unique ; 
it  can  be  predicated  of  no  other.  This  uniqueness  the 
fourth  Gospel  sets  in  strong  relief  by  its  doctrine  of 
eternal  preexistence.  Christ  does  not  become  a  son  of 
God ;  he  is  the  Son  of  God. 

At  this  point  our  inquiries  bring  us  again  face  to  face 
with  the  great  problem  of  doctrinal  theology  respecting 
the  person  of  Christ.  That  problem  is,  whether  this 
altogether  exceptional  intimacy  between  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  taken  in  connection  with  the  sinless  perfection 
of  Christ  and  his  explicit  assertions  of  an  eternal  fellow- 
ship with  God,  does  not  force  us  beyond  the  limits  of 
humanity  for  the  explanation  of  his  person,  and  require 
us  to  posit  an  ontological  relation  as  its  only  adequate 
ground.  A  negative  answer  to  this  question  can  only  be 
justified  by  explaining  away  the  testimonies  of  Jesus  to 
his  preexistence  and  by  showing  that  neither  his  sinless- 
ness  nor  his  unique  fellowship  with  God  requires  for  its 
explanation  any  fundamental  difference  between  him  and 
other  men.  All  this  is  easily  accomplished  by  those  who 
discredit  the  Gospels  at  the  outset;  but  the  efforts  of 
those  who  seek  to  reach  the  same  conclusion  on  the 
assumption  of  the  substantial  trustworthiness  of  the 
Gospels  and  the  genuineness  of  the  fourth,  are  not,  in 
my  judgment,  successful.  Those  who  are  convinced  that 
the  consciousness  of  Jesus  was  "purely  human,"  v/ould 
do  far  better  to  seek  the  confirmation  of  their  conclusion 
in  some  other  field  than  that  of  exegesis.  As  against  this 
conclusion  the  apostolic  Church  and,  for  the  most  part,  the 
Church  of  all  subsequent  ages  have  heed  that  the  self- 
testimony  of  Jesus  as  presented  in  tlie  New  Testament 
compels  the  inference  that  he  eternally  partakes  in  the 
nature  of  Deity.     I  hold  that  this  conclusion  is  correct. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE   HOLY  SPIRIT 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit  is,  in  ] 
a  sense,  the  counterpart  of  the  Synoptic  teaching  regardin^^. 
the  parousia.  It  is  found  wrought  into  those  discourses 
which  were  uttered  towards  the  close  of  his  earthly  life, 
and  the  purpose  of  which  was  to  comfort  his  disciples 
in  view  of  his  approaching  departure  from  them.  He 
assures  them  that,  although  they  will  be  bereft  of  his 
bodily  presence,  he  will  still  be  with  them  in  the  gift 
and  presence  of  the  Spirit. 

To  this  "Holy  Spirit"  (xiv.  26),  or  "Spirit  of  truth" 
(xiv.  17 ;  XV.  26),  these  discourses  apply  by  preference 
the  name  "Paraclete"  (irapdicKriTo^^.  In  most  English 
translations  of  the  Bible  this  word  has  been  rendered 
"Comforter,"  that  is,  one  who  strengthens.  In  the  one 
place,  however,  where  the  word  occurs  outside  of  the 
discourses  in  question  (1  Jn.  ii.  1),  it  is  rendered 
"  Advocate."  The  word  irapd/cXrjTo^i  means  one  who  is 
called  in  to  the  side  of  another,  and  was  commonly 
applied  to  an  advocate  at  law,  especially  the  advocate 
for  the  defence.  Practically,  therefore,  it  means  an 
advocate,  counsellor,  or  helper.  The  word  "  Comforter," 
in  the  sense  of  supporter,  represents  very  well  the  essen- 
tial import  of  irapdickr^To^^  although  Advocate  or  Helper 
would  have  been  a  more  accurate  rendering  and  one  which 
could  have  been  consistently  adopted  in  all  the  passages. 
Since  in  xiv.  16  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  aXXo?  Trapd/cXr]- 
T09,  —  that  is,  since  the  term  irapdKXrjTo^  is  by  implication  \ 
^applied  both  to  Christ  and  the  Spirit  and  in  the  same 
sense,  —  it   is    evidently    desirable    to    assign    the-  same 

213 


21^  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

meaning  to   TrapdfcXrjro^  in  tlie   discourses  and  in   1   Jn. 
ii.  1.     The  Spirit  is  the  Christian's  divine  Helper. 

Various  functions  are  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  He 
will  teach  the  disciples  (xiv.  26),  declare  Christ's  truth 
(xvi.  14),  guide  the  disciples  into  all  the  truth  of  Christ 
(xvi.  13),  bring  his  teaching  home  to  the  recollection  of 
his  followers  (xiv.  26),  glorify  Christ  and  bear  testimony 
concerning  him  (xvi.  14 ;  xv.  26),  and  convict  the  world- 
concerning  sin,  righteousness,  and  judgment  (xvi.  8).  He 
will  hold  constant  fellowship  with  the  disciples  (xiv.  16), 
will  continually  abide  at  their  side  and  dwell  within  them 
as  a  source  of  inspiration  (xiv.  17).  This  description  of 
the  Spirit's  activities  shows  in  what  sense  he  is  called  "the 
Spirit  of  truth."  He  is  the  bearer  and  mediator  of  the 
truth  which  Jesus  embodied  in  his  revealing,  saving  work. 
The  world  of  the  Spirit's  activity  is  the  same  as  that  of 
Christ.  He  is  the  continuator  of  the  redemptive  process 
in  the  world;  he  makes  real  and  effective  in  human  life 
the  truth  which  the  earthly  mission  of  Christ  revealed. 
Hence  tlie  Spirit  of  truth  interprets  those  divine  realities 
which  constitute  the  inner  meaning  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
and  fosters  in  men  the  spiritual  life  which  accords  with 
them.  In  this  way  he  leads  men  into  all  the  truth,  that 
is,  into  the  ever  fuller  realization  of  the  true  import  and 
purpose  of  Christ's  work;  into  the  increasing  fulfilment 
of  the  life  of  love  and  fellowship  with  God.  Thus  the 
Spirit's  work  is  the  same  in  kind  with  that  of  Christ.  It 
is  a  method  or  aspect  of  God's  redemptive  action  in  bring- 
ing men  to  a  saving  knowledge  of  himself.  It  is  not  so 
much  an  addition  to  the  intellectual  possessions  of  men 
which  this  teaching  of  the  Spirit  contemplates,  as  a  trans- 
lation of  the  motives  and  principles  which  reigned  in  the 
life  of  Christ  into  their  conduct  and  characters. 

It  is  necessary  now  to  consider  the  questions  whether 
in  these  discourses  the  Spirit  is  conceived  of  as  a  self  dis- 
tinct from  Christ,  or  is  a  name  for  an  impersonal  principle, 
or  for  the  continued  spiritual  presence  of  Christ  himself 
with  his  disciples  after  his  departure  from  earth.  I  regard 
the  use  of  pronouns  which  refer  to  the  Spirit  as  important 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  215 

in  its  bearing  on  this  question.  Since  the  word  irvevfjua  is 
grammatically  neuter,  all  pronouns  which  have  irvevfia 
for  their  immediate  antecedent  must,  of  course,  be  neu- 
ter also  (xiv.  17,  26;  xv.  26).  It  is  obvious  that  the  use 
of  neuter  pronouns  in  these  circumstances  can  have  no 
bearing  on  the  question  of  the  personality  of  the  Spirit. 
It  is  a  noticeable  fact,  however,  that  pronouns  referring  to 
the  Spirit  which  do  not  have  irveufxa  for  their  immediate 
antecedent  are,  in  all  cases,  masculine,  that  is,  the  Spirit 
is  described  by  personal  designations  except  where  gram- 
matical necessity  compels  the  use  of  neuter  words.  For 
example,  in  xiv.  26,  we  read :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  which 
(o)  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  (e/cetz^o?)  shall 
teach  you  all  things."  The  same  peculiarity  of  language 
is  observed  in  xv.  26 :  "  The  Spirit  of  truth  which  (o )  pro- 
ceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  (e/ceZi^o?)  shall  bear  witness  of 
me."  In  xvi.  13  this  usage  is  still  more  pronounced  since 
the  Spirit  is  designated  by  eVetw?,  although  the  neuter  to 
TTvev/jia  tt}?  aXrjOeia^  stands  in  immediate  apposition  with  it. 
If  the  use  of  masculine  pronouns  in  xvi.  7,  8  might  seem  to 
be  due  to  the  presence  of  the  masculine  noun  irapdfcXTjro^;, 
this  certainly  cannot  be  the  case  in  vv,  13  and  14  where 
irapdicXriTo^  is  not  used.  The  conclusion  which  these  facts 
justify  is  that  our  sources,  with  the  utmost  possible  uni- 
formity refer  to  the  Spirit  in  terms  implying  personality. 

The  view  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  name  for  the  glorified 
Christ  himself  by  which  he  described  his  spiritual  presence 
with  his  disciples,  is  supported  by  appeal  to  the  following 
considerations.  In  xiv.  17,  18  the  Spirit's  coming  and  his 
own  coming  to  his  disciples  seem  to  be  identical :  "  He 
(the  Spirit)  abideth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you.  I  will 
not  leave  you  desolate :  I  come  to  you."  In  connection 
with  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  Jesus  assures  his  followers 
that  they  shall  soon  behold  him  again :  "  A  little  while, 
and  ye  behold  me  no  more  ;  and  again  a  little  while,  and  ye 
shall  see  me"  (xvi.  16;  cf.  xiv.  19).  This  is  understood 
to  mean  that  although  he  will  soon  be  withdrawn  from 
their  physical  sight,  he  will  still  be  spiritually  present  with 
them  and  they  shall  see  him  with  the  eye  of  the  spirit.     In 


216  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

both  manifestations  he  is  the  same  ;  the  name  "  Holy  Spirit " 
is  but  a  personification  of  the  invisible  relation  which  he  will 
sustain  to  them  after  his  ascension.^  The  saTne-identifica- 
tion  of  Christ  and  the  Spirit  is  found  in  the  words  of  Jesus 
after  his  resurrection  when  he  breathed  on  his  disciples  and 
said:  "Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit"  (xx.  22).  This,  it  is 
said,  was  a  symbolical  action  in  which  Jesus  imparted  to 
his  followers  a  power  from  himself;  the  Spirit  which  he 
bestowed  was  the  blessing  of  his  own  inspiring  and  sancti- 
fying spiritual  presence.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  name 
"  Holy  Spirit "  represents  only  a  hypostatizing  of  the 
thought  of  Jesus'  continued  invisible  presence  with  his 
disciples.  In  reality,  the  Spirit  is  identical  with  himself. 
The  ascription  of  personal  activities  and  the  striking  appli- 
cation of  personal  pronouns  to  the  Spirit  which  we  have 
observed  would  be  explained  as  natural  and  appropriate 
on  this  view,  since  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person  in  the  sense 
of  being  identical  with  the  glorified  Redeemer.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  regarded  as  Christ's  continued  life,  and  this  life  is 
personal. 

Alongside  of  the  passages  which  seem  capable  of  this 
explanation,  we  must  now  place  another  group  of  sayings 
which  explicitly  distinguish  the  Holy  Spirit  from  Christ. 
The  Spirit  is  called  "another  Advocate"  (^dWo^  irapd- 
kXtjto^,  xiv.  16).  Christ  was  an  Advocate  or  Helper;  the 
Spirit  will  be  another.  Here  the  two  Helpers  are  plainly 
distinguished  by  the  word  •aWo<;  as  personally  different. 
The  Spirit  is  another  besides  Christ.  The  same  distinction 
is  sharply  marked  in  xiv.  26 :  "  But  the  Comforter,  even 
the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name, 
he  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  to  your  remem- 
brance all  that  I  said  unto  you."  It  is  difficult  to  conceive 
of  Jesus  as  saying  that  the  Father  would  send  the  Spirit 
in  his  name  and  that  he  would  quicken  the  memory  and 

1  So  Eeuss,  Hist.  Christ.  Theol.  II.  469  sq.  (orig.  II.  524  sq.).  Cf.  Bovon, 
Theologie  du  Nouveau  Testament,  I.  521,  who  holds  that  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, with  its  practical  and  religious  tendency,  gives  no  indication  towards 
solving  the  question  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  denotes  a  force  or  a  person. 
The  author  evidently  inclines  strongly  to  the  former  idea. 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  217 

apprehension  of  his  teaching  in  the  minds  of  his  disciples, 
if  he  had  meant  no  more  than  that  he  himself  would  be 
spiritually  present  with  them.  Jesus  distinguishes  him- 
self very  explicitly  from  the  Spirit,  when,  in  xv.  26,  he 
says  that  he  will  send  to  his  disciples  the  Spirit  of  truth 
and  that  he  shall  bear  witness  concerning  himself.  The 
Spirit  shall  glorify  Christ  and  shall  take  Christ's  truth 
and  declare  it  to  his  disciples  (xvi.  14,  15).  Again  he 
says :  "  It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away ;  for  if  I  go 
not  away,  the  Paraclete  will  not  come  to  you ;  but  if  I  go, 
I  will  send  him  unto  you"  (xvi.  7).  On  the  interpreta- 
tion under  review  these  passages  would  mean :  I  will  send 
you  influences  from  myself ;  my  presence  in  another  form 
of  its  manifestation  shall  be  with  you;  I  will  teach  you 
concerning  myself ;  in  my  spiritual  form  of  existence  I  will 
glorify  my  historic  mission  ;  it  is  necessary  that  my  bodily 
presence  be  withdrawn  from  you  in  order  that  my  invisible 
presence  may  be  realized. 

It  is,  indeed,  conceivable  that  Jesus  should  have  said 
all  this.  But  do  the  passages  in  question  represent  him 
as  saying  it?  It  appears  to  me  impossible  to  sustain  this 
view  by  exegesis.  The  Johannine  discourses  represent 
the  Spirit  as  a  self  distinct  from  Christ.  Even  Reuss 
admits  that  this  is  the  exegetical  result  which  tlie  pas- 
sages yield. ^  His  claim  is  that  this  is  a  case  where  the 
problem  respecting  the  real  meaning  of  Jesus  lies  behind 
exegesis.  The  text  embodies  a  misconception.  It  makes 
a  distinction  where  there  is  no  difference.  It  treats  a  two- 
fold manifestation  of  Christ  as  if  two  different  personali- 
ties were  involved.  He  thinks  that  in  the  passages  in 
which  Christ  and  the  Spirit  are  identified  we  have  the 
clew  to  the  real  meaning  of  all  the  others ;  that  as  we 
have  on  the  surface  of  the  discourses  two  divergent  repre- 
sentations, one  describing  identit}^,  the  other  difference, 
we  must  decide  which  is  the  more  rational  and  make  that 
determining  for  the  explanation  of  the  other.  Applying 
this  test,  Reuss  concludes  that  the  distinguishing  of  the 
Spirit  from  Christ  is  due  to  a  speculative  motive,  and 
1  Hist.  Christ.  Theol.  II.  472  (orig.  11.  527). 


218  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

that  the  original  meaning  of  the  teaching  concerning 
the  sending  of  the  Spirit  was  that  Jesus  would  manifest 
his  own  invisible  presence  to  his  disciples  by  spiritual 
influences. 

The  legitimacy  of  such  a  conclusion  should  not  be 
denied  on  merely  theoretical  grounds.  The  question  is 
whether  there  are  ascertainable  facts  which  require  or 
justify  it.  If  there  is  a  real  inconsistency  between  the 
terms  which  describe  the  nature  and  coming  of  the  Spirit 
in  some  passages  and  those  used  in  others,  we  must,  no 
doubt,  determine  which  conception  of  the  subject  is  the 
more  probably  original  and  correct,  and  so  decide  between 
them.  Something  like  this  we  were  compelled  to  do  in 
view  of  the  divergent  representations  in  the  Synoptic 
accounts  of  the  parousia.  Let  us  then  more  closely 
compare  the  description  of  the  Spirit  as  a  distinct  per- 
son with  that  which  is  believed  to  yield  the  opposite 
idea  and  test  their  alleged  inconsistency. 

When  in  connection  with  the  promise  of  the  Spirit 
Jesus  speaks  of  himself  as  coming  to  his  disciples  and 
of  their  seeing  him  (xiv.  18,  19),  there  is  some  difficulty 
in  determining  to  what  sort  of  a  coming  he  refers.  Three 
views  have  been  held,  not  to  mention  combinations  of 
these.  Some  refer  the  words  to  the  second  advent;  others 
to  his  appearance  to  his  disciples  after  the  resurrection; 
and  others  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  On  either  of  the 
first  two  interpretations  the  passage  would  have  no  bear- 
ing upon  our  present  inquiry.  I  regard  the  third  interpre- 
tation, however,  as  more  probably  correct.  The  context 
seems  to  make  it  clear  that  by  his  coming  he  here  means 
his  coming  in  the  gift  and  work  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  by 
their  beholding  him  he  means  the  clearer  spiritual  vision 
of  him  which  the  illumination  of  the  Spirit  will  make 
possible.  Assuming  the  correctness  of  this  interpreta- 
tion, does  the  passage  identify  the  Spirit  with  the  glori- 
fied Christ?  I  think  not.  The  uniform  representation  of 
these  discourses  is  that  the  Spirit  continues  Christ's  work 
in  the  world,  interpreting  and  applying  his  truth,  and  fos- 
tering in  the  disciples  the  spiritual  life.     He  may  there- 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  219 

fore  fitly  say  that  he  conies  to  men  in  the  coming  and 
power  of  the  Spirit.  The  work  of  the  Spirit  is  done  in 
his  name.  It  is  built  upon  his  revealing,  redeeming  work. 
His  object  in  affirming  that  he  will  come  to  them  is  to 
assure  them  that  they  will  not  be  left  desolate ;  the  loss 
of  his  bodily  presence  will  not  involve  their  abandonment; 
they  will  still  be  divinely  guided  and  strengthened.  In 
a  true  sense  the  whole  teaching  respecting  the  Spirit 
implies  the  continued  presence  of  Christ  with  his  disci- 
ples as  over  against  their  desertion.  But  the  emphasis 
in  such  an  assertion  does  not  lie  on  the  distinctionless 
identity  of  Christ  and  the  Spirit,  but  on  the  certainty  that 
they  will  still  spiritually  see  and  know  him.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  xvi.  16 :  "A  little  while,  and  ye  behold  me 
no  more ;  and  again  a  little  while  and  ye  shall  see  me," 
and  xvi.  22.  "But  I  will  see  jou  again,  and  your  heart 
shall  rejoice,"  —  passages  which  I  would  also  refer  to  the 
coming  and  work  of  the  Spirit.  Nor  can  the  conclusion 
in  question  be  legitimately  drawn  from  the  words  of  Jesus 
when  he  breathed  on  his  disciples,  and  said:  "Receive 
ye  the  Holy  Spirit"  (xx.  22).  This  saying  is  as  easily 
construed  in  accordance  with  the  view  which  makes  a 
distinction  between  Christ  and  the  Spirit  as  it  is  in  ac- 
cordance with  that  Avhich  supposes  that  "  Holy  Spirit "  is 
here  a  name  for  Christ's  own  spirit,  subjectively  considered. 
If  a  distinction  is  clearly  recognized  elsewhere,  the  appli- 
cation of  it  here  does  no  violence  to  the  language.  It  is 
only  by  a  misplaced  emphasis  that  these  passages  can  be 
regarded  as  excluding  a  distinction  between  Christ  and 
the  Spirit.  That  Christ  reveals,  himself  and  continues  his 
AaiOfffe^in  the  world  through  the  Spirit,  no  more  excludes  a 
distinction  between  himself  and  the  Spirit  than  the  pres- 
ence and  activity  of  God  in  the  work  of  salvation  wrought 
through  Christ  involves  the  absolute  identity  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son.^ 

1  The  passage  "I  come  again,  and  will  receive  you  unto  myself" 
(xiv.  3),  is  not  brought  into  consideration  here  because  I  hold  that  it 
refers  not  to  the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  but  either  to  the  coming  of  Christ 
at  the  death  of  his  disciples  (so  Tholuck,  Lange,  Holtzmann),  or  to  the 


220  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

The  Spirit  is  sent  in  Christ's  name  (xiv.  26),  that  is,  the 
Spirit's  work  lies  in  that  realm  of  truth  and  life  which  the 
''  name "  of  Christ  symbolizes  and  comprehends.  He  is 
the  interpreter  of  Christ.  The  revealing,  saving  activity 
of  Jesus  is  a  disclosure  in  terms  of  human  life  of  those 
eternal  spiritual  truths  and  powers  which  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  will  make  real  and  effective  in  the  hearts  of  men. 
The  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  supplies,  as  it  were,  the 
materials,  in  forms  which  men  can  apprehend,  upon  which 
the  Spirit  works.  He  opened  the  Kingdom  of  heaven,  he 
disclosed  the  nature  of  God,  the  meaning  of  life,  and  the 
way  to  peace  with  God.  The  Spirit  does  not  bestow  any 
new  or  different  revelation,  but  rather  opens  the  eyes  of 
men  to  see  ever  deeper  meanings  in  what  Jesus  Christ  has 
revealed  in  his  teaching  and  life.  The  connection,  there- 
fore, between  Christ's  historic  action  and  the  Spirit's  work 
is  a  very  close  one.  It  is  of  him  that  the  Spirit  will  bear 
witness  (xv.  26) ;  it  is  his  truth  into  which  the  Spirit  will 
guide  the  disciples.  The  Spirit's  work  is  the  invisible 
continually  operative  counterpart  of  the  historic  action  of 
God  in  Christ.  It  is  the  perpetual  action  of  divine  love 
in  carrying  forward  the  work  of  salvation.  The  historic 
action  of  Christ  was  temporal ;  it  began  and  it  ceased. 
The  Spirit's  work  goes  on  perpetually  accomplishing  the 
fulfilment  of  the  great  saving  process.  For  this  invisible 
but  potent  operation  Jesus  regarded  his  historic  appearance 
as  a  preparation  ;  hence  he  said :  "  It  is  expedient  for  you 
that  I  go  away :  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Paraclete  will 
not  come  to  you ;  but  if  I  go,  I  will  send  him  unto  you  " 
(xvi.  7). 

More  closely  considered,  the  work  of  the  Spirit  is  to 
foster  the  spiritual  life  in  the  individual.  The  faith  and 
love  of  the  first  believers  were  largely  sustained  by  the 
visible  presence  of  Jesus  with  them.  During  his  earthly 
life  he  was  always  leading  their  minds  away  from  depend- 
ence upon  his  miracles  and  from  mere  attachment  to  his 

parousia  (so  Lecliler,  Meyer,  Weiss),  —  more  probably  to  the  former,  at 
any  rate,  in  its  original  intention.  Reuss  does  not  appeal  to  this  passage 
in  support  of  his  view  of  the  identity  of  the  Spirit  with  Christ. 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  221 

visible  personality  to  a  deeper  apprehension  of  what  he 
said  and  was.  He  sought  to  ground  their  faith  upon 
deeper  reasons  than  those  which  appeared  so  largely  to 
the  senses  and  would  be  quickly  weakened  when  he  should 
have  disappeared  from  their  sight.  Only  as  faith  pene- 
trated into  the  heart  of  his  spiritual  truth  and  struck  its 
roots  into  the  life  of  God,  could  its  persistence  and  growth 
be  assured.  Hence  he  said  to  Thomas :  "  Because  thou 
hast  seen  me  thou  hast  believed:  blessed  are  they  that 
have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed"  (xx.  29).  This  is 
the  beatitude  of  those  who  have  not  seen  Christ  in  the 
flesh,  but  who  have  seen  him  with  the  eye  of  the  spirit 
and  who  have  discerned  in  him  the  revelation  of  God  and 
of  the  meaning  and  goal  of  life.  It  was  only  by  such  a 
deepening  of  faith  that  the  spiritual  vision  of  the  first 
disciples  could  be  gradually  enlarged  and  clarified.  Gradu- 
ally their  inherited  prejudices  gave  way.  They  saw  the 
work  of  Christ  and  the  meaning  of  his  Kingdom  in  a  new 
light.  Their  own  faith  found  broader  and  more  secure 
foundations.  That  all  this  might  happen  it  was  necessary, 
he  said,  that  he  should  withdraw  from  them  his  bodily 
presence.  The  veil  of  sense  must  be  rent ;  the  aid  of  sight 
must  be  surrendered  in  order  that  his  disciples  might  walk 
by  faith  alone.  The  inner  treasures  of  the  gospel  must  be 
opened  by  the  Spirit ;  its  hidden  depths  must  be  fathomed ; 
its  lofty  heights  must  be  ascended.  His  followers  must 
cease  to  know  him  after  the  flesh,  for  the  lower  easily 
becomes  a  hindrance  to  the  higher.  Under  the  guidance 
of  the  Spirit  faith  must  assert  its  true  power,  realize  its 
own  true  nature,  adjust  itself  to  that  spiritual  world  to 
which  it  belongs,  and  go  forth  on  its  world-conquering 
mission. 

It  remains  to  consider  the  work  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
unbelieving  world.  It  is  described  in  the  following  pas- 
sage :  "  And  he  (the  Paraclete),  when  he  is  come,  will 
convict  the  world  in  respect  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness, 
and  of  judgement:  in  respect  of  sin,  because  they  believe 
not  on  me  ;  of  righteousness,  because  I  go  to  the  Father,  and 
ye  behold  me  no  more ;  of  judgement,  because  the  prince  of 


222  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

this  world  hath  been  judged"  (xvi.  8-11).  The  Spirit  is 
here  described  by  judicial  analogies  as  appearing  as  an  ad- 
vocate against  the  unbelieving  world  which  has  rejected 
Christ.  In  respect  to  the  matters  of  sin,  righteousness, 
and  judgment  the  Spirit  will  convict  the  world  of  being  in 
the  wrong  and  will  pronounce  upon  it  the  verdict  of  guilty. 
There  are  three  counts  in  the  indictment  against  the  world, 
and  the  causal  clauses  which  are  added  to  the  statement  of 
them  give  the  reasons  why  on  each  of  them  the  world 
stands  condemned. 

With  respect  to  the  matter  of  sin  the  Spirit  will  convict 
the  world  by  showing  that  it  was  in  the  wrong  in  not  wel- 
coming and  believing  on  Jesus  Christ  as  its  Saviour.  The 
sinfulness  of  men  in  rejecting  him  will  more  and  more 
plainly  appear.  The  Spirit  will  demonstrate  the  sinfulness 
of  opposition  to  Christ.  The  next  element  in  the  verdict 
is  kindred  to  this.  With  regard  to  righteousness  the  Spirit 
will  convict  the  world  of  its  false  position,  because  Jesus 
is  going  to  the  Father,  and  his  disciples  will  see  him  no 
more.  The  righteousness  which  is  here  in  question  is 
probably  the  personal  righteousness  of  Christ.  The  world 
has  deemed  him  unrighteous,  and  has  crucified  him  as  such. 
The  Spirit  will  accuse  and  convict  the  world  of  being  in 
the  wrong  in  its  estimate  of  Christ.^-  It  will  reverse  the 
world's  verdict  by  appealing  to  his  ascension  and  glorifica- 
tion. When  he  ascends  to  heaven  and  exerts  his  rightful 
spiritual  authority  over  the  world,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
world  has  misjudged  him.  The  third  element  in  the 
Spirit's  conviction  of  the  world  is  in  respect  to  judgment. 
In  the  matter  of  judgment  the  Spirit  will  put  the  world  in 
the  wrong  because  he  will  show  that  the  prince  of  the  world 
stands  condemned.  The  result  of  the  Spirit's  work  will  be 
a  victory  over  Satan.  This  result  is  seen  as  already  on  the 
point  of  being  accomplished.  "  Now  shall  the  prince  of  this 
world  be  cast  out"  (xii.  31).  The  Spirit  will  procure  the 
verdict  of  history  which  will  vindicate  Christ  and  condemn 
the  spirit  of  opposition  to  him.  It  is  probable  that  this 
work  of  the  Spirit  is  conceived  of  as  wrought  mediately 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  223 

through  the  testimony  and  teaching  of  believers  in  whom 
he  dwells.^ 

This  form  of  teaching  concerning  the  Spirit  is  mainly 
peculiar  to  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  Synoptists  speak  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  as  descending  upon  Jesus  at  his  baptism 
(Mk.  i.  10),  as  driving  him  into  the  wilderness  to  be 
tempted  (Mk.  i.  12),  as  speaking  in  his  disciples  (Mt.  x. 
20),  and  as  pervading  his  life-work  (Lk.  iv.  18).  But  these 
expressions  hardly  carry  us  beyond  the  Old  Testament  idea 
of  "  the  Spirit "  as  a  name  for  the  power  or  presence  of 
God.  The  elaboration  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit's  per- 
sonal nature  and  of  his  offices  in  redemption  is  charac- 
teristic of  that  form  of  Jesus'  teaching  which  the  fourth 
Gospel  presents.  It  is  the  Johannine  counterpart  of  that  j 
aspect  of  the  Synoptic  teaching  concerning  the  parousia  j 
which  is  expressed  in  the  words  of  Jesus :  "  Lo,  I  am  with  i 
you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world  "  (Mt.  xxviii. 
20). 

1  The  foregoing  points  are  elaborated  with  more  exegetical  detail  in  my 
Johannine  Theology.,  ch.  viii. 


CHAPTER  VI 

ETERNAL  LIFE 

The  phrase  "  eternal  life  "  holds  a  place  of  prominence 
^  the  fourth  Gospel  similar  to  that  which  is  occupied  by 
the  title  "Kingdom  of  God"  in  the  Synoptics.  Their 
meaning  is  also  essentially  similar.  To  "  see  "  or  "  enter 
into  "  the  Kingdom  of  God  (iii.  3,  5)  is  the  same  as  to 
"have  eternal  life  "  (_vv.  15,  16).  Both  terms  express  the 
realization  of  salvation  —  the  appropriation  of  the  saving 
benefits  which  Christ  came  to  bestow.  Our  present  pur- 
pose requires  us  to  discuss  the  provision  for  the  bestow- 
ment  of  eternal  life  through  Christ,  the  method  of  its 
appropriation,  and  its  essential  nature  and  characteristics. 

Jesus  represents  himself  as  the  bread  of  life  of  which,  if 
a  man  eat,  he  shall  live  forever  —  the  spiritual  nourish- 
ment for  the  permanent  satisfaction  of  the  soul  (vi.  35,  50). 
When  pressed  for  an  explanation  of  these  strange  words, 
he  said  that  men  should  obtain  eternal  life  by  eating  his 
flesh  and  drinking  his  blood  (^vv.  51-56).  What  was  his 
meaning?  The  interpretation  which  was  adopted  by 
many  of  the  Church  fathers  and  which  obtains  in  the 
Roman  Catholic  church  is  that  he  referred  to  the  impar- 
tation  of  his  body  and  blood  to  the  communicant  in  the 
eucharist.  A  considerable  number  of  modern  Protestant 
scholars  apply  the  words  to  the  Lord's  supper.^     The  diffi- 

1  Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  281,  maintains  this  view  on  the 
ground  that  the  discourse  is  predictive  and  that  Jesus  is  speaking  symboli- 
cally of  his  death  and  resurrection.  If  this  is  the  case,  it  would  more  natu- 
rally lead  to  the  interpretation  given  by  Augustine  and  preferred  by  most 
Protestant  scholars,  that  the  reference  is  to  the  propitiatory  death  of 
Christ  rather  than  specifically  to  the  Lord's  supper.  The  alleged  "pre- 
dictive element,"  however,  is  that  which  requires  to  be  proved.     Jesus 

224 


ETERNAL   LIFE  225 

culties  which  confront  this  explanation  appear  to  me  to  be 
very  great.  Jesus  is  discussing  his  mission  with  his  ene- 
mies. That  he  shoukl  assert  in  reply  to  their  criticisms 
that  it  is  necessary  for  men  to  partake  of  a  memorial  sup- 
per which  AA^as  to  be  founded  some  time  afterwards,  seems 
almost  incredible.  If  that  were  the  meaning  of  the  dis- 
course, it  is  difficult  to  see  how  it  could  have  been  in  the 
slightest  degree  understood  by  those  to  whom  he  spoke. 
Moreover,  the  whole  discourse  appears  to  speak  of  a  pres- 
ent gift  of  eternal  life  which  is  available  for  men  by  a 
believing  reception  of  himself.  It  does  not  purport  to 
speak  of  future  events ;  it  refers  to  what  men  may  now  do 
and,  in  consequence,  have  eternal  life.  Hence  the  great 
majority  of  recent  interpreters  ^  —  correctly,  as  I  believe 
—  reject  this  application  of  the  discourse. 

Almost  equally  difficult,  however,  is  the  prevailing  Prot- 
estant interpretation  that  Jesus  here  spoke  specifically  of 
his  death.  The  giving  of  his  flesh  for  the  life  of  the 
world  (v.  51)  does  not  seem  to  denote  a  giving  up  of  his 
body  to  death,  but  a  continuous  offering  of  himself  to  men 
as  the  living  bread  from  heaven.  The  two  expressions  —  to 
give  his  flesh  to  be  eaten,  and  to  offer  himself  as  the  bread 
of  life  —  appear  to  be  perfectly  synonymous;  but  I  do  not 
see  how  the  latter  is  capable  of  any  specific  application  to 
his  death.  Moreover,  it  is  almost  as  difficult  to  suppose 
that  in  a  disputation  with  hostile  Jews,  Jesus  would  dwell 
so  long  in  advance  upon  the  saving  significance  of  his 
death  as  it  is  to  suppose  that  he  would  offer  them  a  mysti- 
cal exposition  of  the  import  of  the  eucharist.  In  view  of 
these  difficulties  there  is  a  strong  tendency  among  recent 
interpreters  to  abandon  these  explanations  and  to  seek  an 
interpretation  more  in  accord  with  the  historic  situation  of 
the  discourse,  and  with  the  natural  meaning  of  the  figure 
of  "  the  bread  of  life,"  which  underlies  this  whole  descrip- 
tion of  his  saving  mission. 

says  that  the  Father  is  now  giving  (8idcj<nv,  v.  32)  the  true  bread  from 
heaven,  which  is  his  flesh  (u.  51). 

1  So,  e.g.  Liicke,  Meyer,  Weiss,  Beyschlag,  Wendt,  Westcott,  and 
Godet. 

Q 


226  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

To  me  it  seems  more  natural  to  interpret  the  language 
of  the  discourse  in  a  symbolic  or  mystical  sense,  as  express- 
ing the  idea  of  the  appropriation  of  Christ  himself  in  faith 
and  love.  This  explanation  yields  a  natural  meaning  for 
the  figures  of  eating  and  drinking,  and  agrees  well  with 
the  historic  circumstances  in  which  the  discourse  was 
spoken.  The  Jews  demanded  a  "  sign "  from  him : 
"  What,  then,  doest  thou  for  a  sign,  that  we  may  see 
and  believe  thee?  What  workest  thou?"  Qv.  30).  The 
substance  of  Jesus'  reply  was  that  he  would  give  no 
"  sign "  except  himself.  He  offers  himself  to  the  faith 
and  love  of  men.  His  own  person  and  work,  when  they 
are  truly  understood,  constitute  the  true  sign  from  heaven. 
To  receive  and  appropriate  him  in  heart  and  life  is  the 
true  "work  of  God"  (^;.  29).  This  explanation  also  cor- 
responds to  the  current  use  among  the  Jews  of  the  figures 
of  eating  and  drinking.  Lightfoot  has  given  abundant 
examples  of  this  usage.^  It  also  agrees  in  substance  with 
the  answer  of  Jesus  to  the  demand  for  a  sign,  as  recorded 
by  the  Synoptists.  No  sign,  he  said,  should  be  given 
except  the  "sign  of  Jonah,"  that  is,  his  own  presentation 
of  divine  truth  in  his  person  and  teaching  (Mt.  xvi.  4 ;  xii. 
39;  Lk.  xi.  29).  "For  as  Jonah  became  a  sign  unto  the 
Ninevites "  (by  bearing  to  them  a  divine  message  and 
promise),  "  so  shall  also  the  Son  of  man  be  to  this  genera- 
tion "  (Lk.  xi.  29). 2  Whatever,  therefore,  be  the  exact 
meaning  of  "flesh"  and  of  "blood"  in  our  passage,  and 
whatever  may  be  the  distinction  between  them,  the  dis- 
course as  a  whole  directly  relates  neither  to  the  eucharist, 
nor  to  the  death  of  Jesus,  but  to  his  person  as  the  medium 
of  the  supreme  self-revelation  of  God,  from  which  his 
teaching  is,  of  course,  quite  inseparable.  Those  who 
spiritually  receive  him  as  the  bread  of  their  souls,  enter 


1  Horce  Hebraicce,  by  John  Lightfoot,  D.D.  (Oxford  tr.),  III.  307-309. 

2  Our  passage  furnishes  incidental  confirmation  of  the  view  that  the 
"sign  of  Jonah  "  was  Jesus'  teaching  or  revelation  of  God,  as  represented 
in  Luke,  and  not  an  experience  analogous  to  Jonah's  being  three  days 
in  the  belly  of  a  sea-monster,  as  the  first  Gospel  explains  it  (in  xii. 
39,  though  not  in  xvi.  4). 


ETERNAL   LIFE  227 

into  loving  fellowship  with  him  and  make  him  their  guide 
and  inspiration,  thereby  attain  eternal  life.^ 

Elsewhere  Jesus  refers  to  his  death  on  behalf  of  (yirep) 
men,  that  is,  in  order  to  secure  their  salvation.  "The 
good  shepherd  lays  down  his  life  for  the  sheep"  (x.  11, 15). 
Here  the  import  of  the  allegory  would  suggest  that,  as  the 
shepherd  is  ready  to  make  great  personal  sacrifice  to  jDro- 
tect  his  sheep  from  danger,  so  Jesus  undergoes  a  self- 
denying  death  for  those  whom  he  loves.  To  derive  the 
expiatory  idea  from  this  passage,  as  Meyer  does,  by  ex-*::::^ 
plaining  the  words  "lays  down  his  life"  as  meaning, 
"pays  down  his  life  as  a  ransom-price,"  appears  to  me 
exegetically  untenable.^  The  death  of  Christ  is  here  re- 
garded as  the  supreme  proof  of  self-renouncing  love,  as  in 
the  words :  "  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a 
man  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends  "  (xv.  13).  In 
what  specific  way  the  death  of  Jesus  avails  to  secure  the 
eternal  life  of  men,  these  passages  do  not  tell  us.  They 
rest  upon  analogies  drawn  from  human  experience.  They 
are  general  and  indefinite ;  yet  they  clearly  speak  of  some 
unique  service  of  love  which  Jesus  discharges  to  the  world 
by  his  death,  to  which  they  attribute  a  special  saving 
significance  and  value. 

Jesus  described  his  work  for  men  as  involving  a  perfect 
self-giving  which  stopped  not  short  of  the  yielding  up  of 
his  life  for  them.  "  For  their  sakes,"  he  said,  "  I  sanctify 
myself,  that  they  themselves  also  may  be  sanctified  in 
truth"  (xvii.  19).  He  consecrated  himself  absolutely  to 
his  saving  mission  in  order  to  secure  an  analogous  conse- 
cration to  truth  and  duty  on  the  part  of  his  followers.^ 
That  Jesus  regarded  his  death  as  an  essential  element  in 
this  self-devotion  to  his  mission  is  evident  from  the  saying : 
"  Except  a  grain  of  wheat  fall  into  the  earth  and  die,  it 
abideth  by  itself  alone  ;  but  if  it  die,  it  beareth  much 
fruit"  (xii.  24).     But  it  is  clear  from  the  context  of  this 

1  Cf.  my  Johannine  Theology^  pp.  158-164. 

2  For  a  fuller  discussion,  see  The  Johannine  Theology^  pp.  172-175. 

3  On  the  interpretation  which  assigns  a  specifically  sacrificial  sense  to 
"sanctify"  (^aytd'^eLv)  here,  see  The  Johannine  Theology,  pp.  178,  179. 


228  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

passage  that  the  dying  which  is  spoken  of  is  regarded  as 
the  culmination  of  service  and  self-giving.  Jesus  here 
formulates  the  law  of  serving  love  to  which  his  disciples, 
as  well  as  himself,  are  subject.  They  are  to  follow  him 
in  the  life  of  self-renunciation  and  thus  to  win  their  true, 
eternal  life  (^vv.  25,  26).  Twice  he  refers  to  his  being 
lifted  up  on  the  cross  (iii.  14, 15 ;  xii.  34).  This  is  spoken 
of  as  necessary  and  as  a  means  whereby  men  will  be  drawn 
to  him  and  will  obtain  eternal  life.  It  is  probable  that  in 
the  second  of  these  passages  the  lifting  up  from  the  earth 
refers  not  only  to  the  death  on  the  cross,  as  John  explains 
it  (xii.  33),  but  to  the  consequent  exaltation,  after  the 
analogy  of  Phil.  ii.  8,  9.  In  any  case  the  death  of  Christ 
is  presented  as  the  consummation  of  his  work  of  love  and 
the  chief  source  of  his  matchless  power  in  the  world. 
Further  than  this  the  words  of  Jesus,  as  John  reproduces 
them,  do  not  carry  us  towards  any  philosophy  of  the  rela- 
tion between  his  death  and  the  bestowment  of  eternal  life. 
The  fact  of  such  a  relation  they  do  clearly  presuppose. 

The  subjective  factor  in  the  procurement  of  eternal  life 
is  faith.  This  condition  is  emphasized  in  the  discourse 
on  the  bread  of  life  where  believing  on  Christ,  coming 
to  him,  and  eating  of  the  heavenly  bread,  are  evidently 
equivalent  phrases.  Hence  we  find  the  concise  formula : 
"He  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life"  (vi.  47).  The  sum 
of  God's  requirements  is  that  men  believe  on  Christ  (vi. 
29).  What,  then,  is  faith  that  it  should  be  the  gateway 
into  eternal  life?  It  is  clear  that  it  is  something  more 
than  mere  intellectual  assent.  The  belief  which  was  the 
result  of  some  temporary  impression  Jesus  did  not  highly 
esteem.  Hence  he  said  to  certain  Jews,  which  had  be- 
lieved him :  "  If  ye  abide  in  my  word,  then  are  ye  truly  my 
disciples"  (viii.  31).  Again,  we  are  told  that  he  did  not 
yield  his  confidence  to  those  who  were  chiefly  influenced 
to  believe  on  him  by  the  miracles  which  he  did  (ii.  23,  24). 
A  true,  saving  faith  will  rest  upon  more  spiritual  grounds, 
and  will  imply  a  more  adequate  appreciation  of  the  deeper 
significance  of  his  person  and  work.  Hence  he  regarded 
faith  as  a  growing  thing.     It  may  rest  at  first  upon  super- 


ETERNAL   LIFE  229 

ficial  reasons,  but  if  it  is  sincere,  it  is  capable  of  sucli  ex- 
pansion and  enrichment  that  it  will  find  for  itself  a  new 
and  deeper  basis.  Hence  it  is  said  that  after  the  miracle 
at  Cana,  in  Galilee,  in  which  Jesus  "manifested  his 
glory,"  "his  disciples  believed  on  him"  (ii.  11),  that  is, 
entered  on  a  new  stage  of  faith  in  consequence  of  their 
clearer  apprehension  of  his  divine  power  and  glory. 

As  I  have  already  intimated,  faith  in  the  deeper  sense 
of  the  word  involves  life-union  with  Christ.  It  is  spiritual 
fellowship  with  the  Redeemer.^  To  believe  in  this  true 
sense  is  to  come  to  Christ  (vi.  35),  and  so  to  enter  into 
the  realization  of  eternal  life  (v.  47).  Faith,  therefore, 
involves  one's  whole  spiritual  attitude  towards  the  divine 
truth  and  love  which  are  supremely  revealed  in  Christ. 
The  condition  of  appropriating  eternal  life,  which  in  so 
many  places  is  called  faith,  is  elsewhere  described  as  abid- 
ing in  Christ.  The  allegory  of  the  Vine  and  the  Branches 
(xv.  1-9)  contains  the  most  striking  representation  of  this 
idea.  As  the  branch  obtains  life  only  by  remaining  con- 
nected with  the  stock  and  root,  so  the  disciple  receives 
spiritual  life  and  is  enabled  to  bear  its  fruits  only  by  abid- 
ing in  Christ.  The  realization  of  this  oneness  witKQhrist 
is  the  life  of  faith ;  it  is  that  impartation  of  spiritual  life 
from  God  which  makes  one  a  participant  in  the  Kingdom 
of  God  (iii.  3)  and  a  possessor  of  eternal  life. 

The  view  which  has  just  been  expressed  respecting  the 
mystical  significance  of  faith  is  confirmed  by  the  passage : 
"  And  this  is  eternal  life,  that  they  should  know  thee  the 
only  true  God,  and  him  whom  thou  didst  send,  even  Jesus 
Christ"  (xvii.  3).  Whether  we  regard  this  statement  as 
intended  to  define  the  essence  of  eternal  life,  or  as  stating 
the  condition  of  attaining  it,  the  words  imply  a  close  con- 
nection between  eternal  life  and  the  knowledge  of  God 
and  Christ.  The  practical  difference  between  these  views 
is  not  very  great,  since  on  the  foi-mer  interpretation  it 
would  hardly  be  maintained  that  the  two  terms  in  ques- 
tion are  absolutely  synonymous,  but  only  that  the  knowl- 

1  Illustrations  of  this  view  and  of  the  anti-mystical  views  of  Weiss  and 
Wendt  are  given  in  my  Johannine  Theology,,  pp.  228-232. 


230  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

edge  of  God  and  of  Christ  is  the  root  or  subjective 
principle  of  eternal  life.  This  explanation  would  closely 
resemble  the  view  that  the  knowledge  spoken  of  is  the 
condition  of  sharing  in  the  eternal  life.  The  passage  is 
probably  to  be  explained  after  the  analogy  of  such  sayings 
as  these :  "  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life  "  (xi.  25), 
that  is,  the  means  whereby  these  are  secured,  and:  "I 
am  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life "  (xiv.  6),  that  is, 
the  one  who  guides  men  into  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the 
life.  In  like  manner  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  Christ, 
that  is,  fellowship  and  sympathy  with  them,  is  the  con- 
dition of  realizing  the  eternal  life.  It  is  not  an  arbitrary 
condition,  but  one  which  is  prescribed  by  the  very  nature 
of  eternal  life.  That  life  is  the  realization  of  man's  destiny 
as  a  son  of  God;  it  is  the  Godlike  life  and  must  there- 
fore be  realized  in  fellowship  with  God,  involving  love  and 
obedience  to  him.  The  knowledge  of  God  is  communion 
with  God;  eternal  life  is  the  blessedness,  the  increasing 
perfection,  which  flows  from  that  communion.  Eternal 
life  is  a  gift,  a  bestowment  of  God ;  the  knowledge  of  God 
is  the  subjective  appropriation,  the  entrance  of  man  into 
that  relation  of  obedience  and  receptivity  which  makes 
the  realization  of  eternal  life  possible.  They  are  related  as 
faith  to  salvation;  as  conversion  to  regeneration.  They 
are  thus  distinguishable  but  not  separable. 

The  knowledge  of  which  our  passage  speaks  is  a  vital, 
spiritual  apprehension  of  God  as  he  is  revealed  in  Christ. 
It  is  not  a  mere  theoretic  knowledge,  but  a  knowledge 
which  carries  the  whole  nature  with  it  so  that  God  be- 
comes the  supreme  object  and  the  ruling  power  in  the  life. 
Its  meaning  is  set  in  clear  light  by  those  passages  which 
speak  of  those  who  do  not  possess  it.  The  enemies  of 
Jesus  did  not  know  God  (viii.  55),  that  is,  they  were 
without  appreciation  of  his  nature  and  revelation  and  des- 
titute of  ethical  likeness  to  him ;  "  but  I  know  him,"  said 
Jesus,  meaning  that  he  was  in  sympathetic  intimacy  with 
God.  "  If  ye  had  known  me,"  he  said  again,  "  ye  would 
have  known  my  Father  also  "  (xiv.  7)  ;  that  is,  if  they  had 
truly  appreciated  the  meaning  of  his  person  and  work  and 


ETERNAL   LIFE  231 

had  put  themselves  under  their  power,  they  would  have 
found  him  the  way  of  entrance  into  fellowship  with  God. 

But  what  is  such  a  knowledge  of  God  which  involves 
the  consent  of  the  total  man  but  the  love  of  God  with  all 
the  heart,  soul,  mind,  and  strength  which  the  Synoptic  dis- 
courses (Mk.  xii.  30,  31 ;  Mt.  xxii.  37,  38)  designate  as 
the  first  and  great  commandment?  In  a  characteristic 
Scriptural  use  of  words,  to  know  is  to  love.  "  Every  one 
that  loveth  knoweth"  (1  Jn.  iv.  7).  The  various  terms 
by  which  the  conditions  of  salvation  are  described  meet 
and  blend  into  perfect  harmony  and  unity.  Faith  is  trust 
in  God  ;  the  knowledge  of  God  means  fellowship  with  him ; 
love  to  God  includes  devotion,  obedience,  and  service  to 
him.  Fundamentally  considered,  they  are  all  the  same. 
No  doubt  the  greatest  of  all  such  terms  is  love;  but  there 
could  be  no  love  to  God  which  did  not  embrace  what  we 
mean  by  faith  in  God  and  the  knowledge  of  him.  Eternal 
life  is  simply  the  life,  —  the  life  which  is  truly  such,  —  life 
after  the  divine  ideal.  It  is  realized  by  coming  into  right 
relations  to  God.  Entrance  into  these  relations  and  the 
maintenance  of  them  may  be  called  by  various  terms,  such 
as  faith,  obedience,  fellowship,  love.  They  all  mean  the 
same  thing,  or  various  aspects  of  the  same  thing.  Sal- 
vation is  a  spiritual  life ;  the  conditions  of  its  realization 
are  spiritual.  It  is  an  eternal  life.  It  has  nothing  to  do 
with  time  or  place.  It  is  realized  in  this  world,  or  in  any 
world,  where  its  spiritual  conditions  are  fulfilled. 

"  Eternal  life,"  as  used  in  our  source,  represents  an  ethi- 
cal or  qualitative  conception.  It  stands  in  contrast  to  per- 
ishing (iii.  16 ;  X.  28),  that  is,  to  the  ethical  destruction  of 
the  soul,  the  forfeiture  of  man's  true  destiny  as  a  son  of 
God.  This  blessed  life  which  is  realized  in  fellowship  with 
God  is  eternal,  not  merely  in  the  sense  of  imperishable  or 
endless,  but  in  the  higher  sense  of  the  true  Godlike  life, 
which  by  reason  of  its  kinship  to  God  is  raised  above  all 
limits  of  time  and  place.  It  is  life  as  opposed  to  the  moral 
death  of  sin  (v.  21,  25).  "He  that  heareth  my  word," 
said  Jesus,  "  and  believeth  him  that  sent  me,  hath  eternal 
life,  and  cometh  not  into  judgment,  but  hath  passed  out  of 


232  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

the  death  (eic  rod  Oavdrov,  the  death  which  is  really  such) 
into  the  life  (et?  r7)v  ^(orjv,  the  life  which  is  truly  life)." 
While,  therefore,  the  eternal  life  is  by  its  very  nature  con- 
tinuous, the  emphasis  of  the  phrase  lies  upon  the  source 
and  nature  of  the  life  rather  than  upon  its  continuance. 
Eternal  life  is  life  like  that  of  God,  who  is  its  source.  The 
version  of  Jesus'  teaching  concerning  God  which  we  have 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  lays  its  main  stress,  not  upon  the 
perpetuity  of  God's  existence,  but  upon  his  ethical  nature. 
The  life  which  consists  in  likeness  to  him  is  therefore  cor- 
respondingly ethical.  So  far,  then,  as  there  is  any  "  time- 
element  "  in  the  word  "  eternal,"  as  used  in  these  discourses, 
it  seems  to  be  this,  that  the  true,  spiritual,  divine  life,  being 
grounded  in  the  very  nature  of  God,  is  independent  of  all 
limitations  of  time  or  place.  Hence  it  is  often  called  sim- 
ply "life,"  or  "the  life  "  (e.c/.  iii.  36;  v.  24;  vi.  33;  x.  10 
et  al.')^  as  if  it  had  a  certain  absolute  character. 

Whatever  be  the  exact  import  of  the  word  "  eternal,"  or 
the  philosophy  of  its  meaning,  it  is  a  noticeable  fact  that 
it  is  generally  described  as  a  present,  rather  than  a  future, 
possession  of  believers.     In  the  Synoptics,  on  the  contrary, 
the  phrase  has  a  future  reference.     It  stands  in  contrast  to 
"  this  time  "  (Lk.  xviii.  30),  and  designates  the  promised 
blessedness  of  the  "coming  age"  (Mk.  x.  30).     The  two 
,^  representations  are  to  be  understood  and  explained  in  the 
same  way  as  are  the  two  pictures  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
^  as  present  and  as  future.     Eternal  life  already  belongs  to 
\him  who  fulfils  the  conditions  of  its  realization,  but  it  looks 
forward  to  the  future  for  its  completion.     The  present  and 
the  future  aspects  are  combined  in  such  words  as  these: 
"  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath  eter- 
_nal  life ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day  "  (vi.  54). 
^  In  this  respect,  as  in  others,  the  doctrine  of  eternal  life 
■.proves  itself  to  be  the  counterpar^t  of  the  Synoptic  doc- 
Wine  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.     n^th.  illustrate  the  prin- 
ciple that  salvation  is  not  a  matter  df  time  and  place,  but 
of  spiritual  attitude  and  relation  to  God.     It  is  unaffected 
by  the  change  which  we  call  death.     "  If  a  man  keep  my 
word,  he  shall  never  taste  of  death  "  (viii.  52) ;  he  shall 


ETERNAL   LIFE  233 

pass  through  physical  death  unharmed ;  "  though  he  die, 
yet  shall  he  live"  (xi.  25).  Eternal  life  is  fulness  and 
richness  of  being,  the  realization  of  the  divinely  appointed 
goal  of  existence  through  union  with  God  and  likeness  to 
Christ.  '-'*^ 

Eternal  life  is  the  life  whose  essence  is  love.  It  is  the  | 
life  from  which  all  true  fellowship  springs.  It  is  the  basis 
of  all  true  unity,  harmony,  and  sympathy.  Hence  the  chief 
requirement  of  the  dispenser  of  life  is  that  men  should 
love  one  another  as  he  loved  them  (xv.  12).  Only  on  the 
principles  of  the  eternal  life  can  human  society  ever  be 
perfected.  No  true  social  fellowship  can  exist  except  where 
mutual  service  and  helpfulness,  which  spring  out  of  love, 
are  the  law  of  action.  Men  realize  the  eternal  life  in  pro- 
portion as  they  love  one  another  as  Christ  has  loved  them. 
Redemption  is  accomplished  in  the  degree  in  which  men 
are  brought  into  likeness  to  him  whose  very  nature,  as 
love,  is  the  absolute  norm  of  all  goodness. 


4,    I 


r 


-fuj^.     —   A^' 


i 


H 


\ 


CHAPTER  VII 

ESCHATOLOGY 

John  has  not  preserved  to  us  any  of  those  sayings  of 
Jesus  concerning  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end 
of  the  age  which  the  Synoptists  have  apparently  combined 
together  in  the  ''  great  eschatological  discourse"  (Mk.  xiii. ; 
Mt.  xxiv. ;  Lk.  xxi.).  The  language  of  our  sources  con- 
cerning Messiah's  second  advent  is  far  less  perplexing 
than  is  that  of  the  Synoptics,  even  if  it  is  by  no  means 
always  easy  of  interpretation.  The  principal  exegetical 
difficulty  connected  with  the  eschatological  sayings  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  arises  not  from  the  apparent  mingling  of 
logia  relating  to  different  subjects,  but  from  a  blending  of 
the  physical  and  the  spiritual.  In  general,  however,  we 
shall  find  a  larger  spiritual  or  symbolical  element  than 
appears  on  the  surface  of  the  Synoptics.  This  fact  will 
have  a  bearing  upon  the  validity  of  the  conclusions  which 
we  adopted  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  parousia  in  the 
Synoptic  discourses. 

One  of  the  most  striking  sayings  concerning  Christ's 
coming  is :  "  And  if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  3^ou,  I 
come  again,  and  will  receive  you  unto  myself"  (xiv.  3). 
The  context  seems  to  favor  the  view  that  this  coining  is 
the  second  advent.  Jesus  has  just  spoken  of  going  away, 
and  his  return  to  take  them  to  the  place  which  he  is  to 
prepare  would  seem  to  be  the  parousia.^  But  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  meaning  is  more  congruous  with  the 
situation  if  the  words  are  understood  to  refer  to  Christ's 
coming  at  death  to  the  believer  and  taking  him  to  his 
heavenly  abode .^     It  is  not  easy  to  refer  the  promise  to  an 

1  So  Ewald,  Meyer,  Lutliardt,  Weiss. 

2  So  Tholuck,  Lange,  Reuss,  Holtzmann. 

234  ■ 


ESCHATOLOGY  235 

eschatological  event,  unless  it  be  assumed  that  Jesus 
believed  that  his  second  advent  would  occur  within  the 
lifetime  of  those  to  whom  he  was  speaking.  Considered 
as  a  word  of  comfort  to  the  disciples  whom  he  is  about  to 
leave,  the  passage  seems  most  apposite  and  forcible  if  it  is 
understood  as  describing  the  blissful  death  of  believers. 
I,  therefore,  incline  to  the  view  that  this  was  probably 
its  original  intention,  although  it  must  remain  doubtful 
whether  the  words  as  reported  were  not  understood  by  the 
evangelist  as  applying  to  the  parousia.  The  theory  of  a 
composite  meaning,  and  that  which  refers  it  to  a  spiritual 
coming  to  the  disciples,  are  more  difficult  to  reconcile  with 
the  context.^ 

In  xiv.  18  we  read:  "I  will  not  leave  you  desolate 
(orphans)  :  I  come  to  you."  In  the  immediate  connection 
Jesus  is  speaking  of  the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  and  it  is 
highly  probable  that  to  this  coming  the  passage  in  question 
refers.  It  is  equally  probable  that  a  spiritual  coming  of 
some  kind  is  meant  in  verse  23  where  he  says  that  the 
Father  and  himself  will  come  to  the  disciples,  and  also  in 
verse  28  where  he  says :  "  Ye  heard  how  I  said  to  jou,  I  go 
away  and  I  come  again  to  you."  Since  elsewhere  (xvi.  7) 
his  departure  from  them  and  the  coming  of  the  Comforter 
are  presented  as  counterparts,  it  is  probable  that  the  com- 
ing to  them  here  spoken  of  is  his  coming  in  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit.  These  passages  certainly  give  the  impression  that, 
according  to  John,  Jesus  spoke  mainly  of  his  coming  in  a 
spiritual  sense ;  or,  at  any  rate,  that  he  spoke  of  it  in  other 
meanings  than  that  which  prevails  in  the  S3aioptics  —  a 
visible  return  to  earth  at  the  end  of  the  present  world- 
period. 

In  chapter  xvi.  Jesus  speaks  of  his  disciples  and  him- 
self as  seeing  each  other  after  his  departure  from  earth  : 
"  A  little  while  and  je  behold  me  no  more ;  and  again  a 
little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  me"  (xvi.  16).  "Ye  there- 
fore now  have  sorrow  :  but  I  will  see  you  again  and  your 
heart  shall  rejoice,  and  your  joy  no  one  taketh  from  you  " 
(xvi.  22).     It  is  possible  that  these  sayings  refer  to  his 

1  Cf.  my  Johannine  Theology,  p.  332. 


236  THE   JOHAKNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

appearances  to  his  disciples  after  the  resurrection,  and, 
indeed,  this  is  the  meaning  which  they  at  first  most  natu- 
rally suggest ;  but  if  they  are  considered  in  analogy  with 
xiv.  18,  it  becomes  probable  that  they  also  refer  to  some 
kind  of  spiritual  fellowship  which  should  continue  and 
compensate  for  the  withdrawal  of  his  bodily  presence.  In 
the  passage  just  cited  the  present  physical  sight  {Oecopelre) 
of  him  by  "the  world"  is  set  in  contrast  to  the  spiritual 
vision  of  him  (oy^reaOe)  by  his  disciples.  The  passages  in 
in  chapter  xvi.  are  therefore  best  understood  as  affirming 
a  continuance  of  that  mutual  knowledge  and  communion 
which  stands  in  contrast  to  the  mere  outward  perception 
of  him  by  others,  which  is  soon  to  cease.  The  whole 
description,  in  the  context,  of  the  living  relations  which 
he  will  continue  to  sustain  to  them  after  his  departure  (yv. 
23-26),  seems  to  me  strongly  to  reenforce  this  interpreta- 
tion. Moreover,  the  promise  of  such  a  permanent  fellow- 
ship would  be  far  more  adequate  to  comfort  them  in  view 
of  his  approaching  departure  than  would  the  assurance 
of  a  few  temporary  appearances  to  them  in  bodily  form 
after  the  resurrection.  I  would  therefore  class  these 
passages  with  those  which  refer  to  a  spiritual  mode  of 
manifestation  to  his  disciples,  and  would  regard  them  as 
additional  evidence  that  Jesus  spoke  of  his  future  coming 
in  manifold  forms.^ 

Another  saying  of  no  little  difficulty  is  that  which  Jesus 
addressed  to  Peter  concerning  John :  "  If  I  will  that  he 
tarry  (^fiiveiv)  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ?  Follow 
thou  me"  (xxi.  22).  Jesus  has  just  charged  Peter  to 
feed  his  sheep  (y.  17).  He  then  speaks  to  him  of  the 
martyr-death  which  he  is  to  experience  in  his  old  age,  and 
adds:  "Follow  me"  (v.  19).  Peter  thereupon  sees  the 
beloved  disciple  following,  and  at  once  inquires  of  Jesus 
what  his  fate  shall  be.  The  passage  cited  is  Jesus'  reply. 
The  point  to  be  determined  is :  What  is  the  meaning  of 
the  phrase,  "  till  I  come  "  ?  To  me  it  seems  clear  that  the 
writer  understood  the  words  to  refer  to  the  second  advent. 

1  The  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  word  "see"  in  these  passages  is 
adopted  by  Liicke,  Meyer,  Reuss,  Godet,  Dwight,  and  Plummer. 


ESCHATOLOGY  237 

Peter  is  told  that  he  is  to  suffer  a  violent  death  before  the 
parousia.  He  then  asks  the  fate  of  John.  Jesus  replies 
that  he  need  not  concern  himself  about  that  question ;  if 
it  should  be  his  will  that  John  live  on  till  his  second  com- 
ing, that  can  make  no  difference  with  his  (Peter's)  divinely 
appointed  course.  Yet  Jesus  did  not  say  that  John  should 
survive  the  parousia,  and  therefore  the  saying  which  went 
abroad,  that  the  beloved  disciple  should  not  die  (v.  23), 
was  based  upon  an  unwarranted  inference.  Jesus  used 
the  hypothetical  statement  with  reference  to  John  only  to 
emphasize  for  Peter  the  truth  that  he  need  not  concern 
himself  about  others,  but  only  about  his  own  calling  and 
duty.i  The  ex23lanation  which  applies  the  words  "  till  I 
come  "  to  John's  natural  death  yields  a  less  forcible  and 
appropriate  sense.  It  would  represent  Jesus  as  coming  to 
John  in  death,  but  not  to  Peter ;  or  else  it  would  be  the 
mere  tautology  of  saying :  "  If  I  Avill  that  John  live  till 
he  dies.  "2  It  is  probable,  then,  that  this  passage  is  to  be 
added  to  xiv.  3  as  illustrating  the  idea  of  an  eschatological 
coming  of  Christ  in  the  Johannine  memoranda  of  the 
Lord's  words.  But  it  must  be  frankly  admitted  that  the 
original  import  of  neither  of  these  references  is  perfectly 
clear.  All  that  can  be  confidently  affirmed  is  that  they 
seem  to  be  treated  by  the  tradition  as  references  to  a  per- 
sonal second  coming.  We  are  by  no  means  warranted, 
however,  in  asserting,  as  Reuss  does,  that  "  the  current 
eschatological  ideas  of  primitive  Christianity  are  not  found 
in  the  Gospel  of  John,"  ^  especially  in  view  of  the  numer- 
ous references  to  resurrection  at  the  ''last  day"  (vi.  39, 
40,  44,  54 ;  xi.  24 ;  xii.  48),  which  can  be  no  other  than 
"  the  day  of  judgment "  (1  Jn.  iv.  17),  that  is,  the  day  of 
Christ's  consummate  self-manifestation  or  parousia. 

But  the  spiritual  conception  of  Christ's  coming  stands 
out  in  much  clearer  relief  in  our  discourses,  and  is  en- 
titled  to   be   considered   the    characteristic   idea   of    the 

1  So  Lticke,  DeWette,  Meyer,  Weiss,  Holtzmann. 
^  Still  other  explanations  are  referred  to  in  my  Johannine  Tlieology, 
pp.  337,  338. 

3  Hist.  Christ.  Theol.  II.  498  (orig.  ii.  550). 


238  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

fourth  Gospel  on  the  subject.  In  our  examination  of  the 
Synoptic  teaching  we  found  reasons  for  believing  that 
Jesus  spoke  of  different  "  comings "  or  ''  days "  of  his 
manifestation  —  various  epochs  or  stages  in  the  progres- 
sive triumph  of  his  Kingdom  on  earth.  The  language 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  accords  with  this  view.  The  idea  of 
tlie  coming  of  Christ  is  mainly  associated  with  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  Spirit,  and  finds  its  chief  fulfilment  in 
that  enlightenment  and  enrichment  of  the  spiritual  life 
which  is  to  follow  his  ascension  to  heaven.  And  what  is 
this  but  the  meaning  of  Jesus'  saying  at  his  trial  that  from 
that  time  onward  they  would  see  him  coming  in  triumph 
(Mk.  xiv.  62  ;  Mt.  xxvi.  64 ;  Lk.  xxii.  69)  ?  His  mission 
was  to  be  vindicated  in  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit 
(xvi.  8-11 ;  xvii.  1,  2),  and  his  victory  was  to  be  assured. 
His  enemies  thought  that  when  they  lifted  him  up  on  the 
cross,  they  had  defeated  his  cause ;  but  Jesus  saw  that  it 
was  from  that  very  event  that  his  real  triumph  should 
begin.  From  that  cross  he  would  draw  all  men  unto  him 
(xii.  32).  The  way  of  the  cross  was  to  be  the  way  to  his 
glory  and  his  crown.  From  the  time  when  the  world 
condemned  and  rejected  him,  the  world's  conviction  of  its 
sin  began.  From  that  hour,  and  more  and  more  as  time 
advanced,  Jesus  was  seen  to  be  sitting  on  the  real  throne 
of  power.  Thus  he  comes  perpetually  in  his  Kingdom  on 
the  clouds  of  heaven  —  a  symbolic  way  of  describing  the 
majesty  which  is  seen  to  belong  to  him,  according  to  the 
vindication  of  the  Spirit  and  the  verdict  of  history. 

The  resurrection  of  the  believer  from  the  state  of  death 
is  treated  as  a  part  of  the  bestowment  of  eternal  life.  "  I 
will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day  "  is  the  refrain  which  we 
hear  throughout  the  discourse  on  the  bread  of  life  (vi.  39, 
40,  44,  54).  The  same  subject  is  dwelt  upon  in  the  dis- 
course which  was  called  out  by  the  sabbath-question 
(v.  19  sg.).  Here  the  resurrection  appears  to  be  viewed, 
now  as  referring  to  the  present  realization  of  spiritual  life, 
now  as  pertaining  to  the  future  consummation.  As  the 
Father  quickens  men  from  the  death  of  sin,  so  the  Son 
also  quickens  whom  he  will  (y.  21).     The  believer  who 


ESCHATOLOGY  239 

now  possesses  eternal  life  is  already  victor  over  death. 
He  belongs  not  to  death  but  to  life  {v.  24).  Already  for 
such  the  hour  is  present  when  they  hear  the  voice  of  the 
Son  of  God  summoning  them  to  the  immortal  life  (v.  25). 
It  is  difficult  to  decide  whether  these  sayings  are  purely 
figurative,  referring  entirely  to  an  ethical  resurrection,  a 
spiritual  quickening,  or  whether  they  refer  to  a  future 
resurrection  from  death  considered  as  guaranteed  and  as 
already  realized  by  anticipation  through  the  secure  posses- 
sion of  eternal  life.  Verses  28  and  29  are  quite  certainly 
eschatological :  "  IMarvel  not  at  this  :  for  the  hour  cometh, 
in  which  all  that  are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and 
shall  come  forth;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the 
resurrection  of  life ;  and  they  that  have  done  ill,  unto  the 
resurrection  of  judgment."  The  probability  therefore  is 
that  to  this  resurrection  or  triumph  over  death  the  pre- 
vious verses  also  refer.  But  the  present  possession  of 
eternal  life  is  regarded  as  including  life  from  the  dead 
because  the  eternal  life  completely  transcends  the  relation 
of  present  and  future.  He  who  has  received  the  gift  of 
the  life  that  is  truly  such  is  already  in  the  secure  posses- 
sion of  all  which  that  life  involves.  He  is  already  victor 
over  death.  Whatever  particular  experience  or  trans- 
formation may  await  him  in  the  future,  it  is  certain  that 
the  forces  of  life  will  triumph.  He  cannot,  indeed,  be 
exempt  from  the  common  lot  of  physical  death,  but  for 
him  pliysical  death  is  only  transition.  Life  is  not  thereby 
extinguished  or  impeded.  "  Though  he  die,  yet  shall  he 
live"  (xi.  25).  Life  triumphs  over  death  by  its  very 
nature.  Its  victory  may  be  marked  by  future  events,  but 
the  larger  truth  is  that  it  triumphs  because  of  what  it  is 
—  the  true,  the  eternal  life. 

With  this  close  correlation  between  the  ideas  of  resur- 
rection and  eternal  life  agree  the  words  of  Jesus  to  Martha 
concerning  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  Jesus  had  said 
to  her:  "Thy  brother  shall  rise  again"  (xi.  23).  She 
replied :  "  I  know  that  he  shall  rise  again  in  the  resurrec- 
tion at  the  last  day  "  (v.  24)  ;  to  which  Jesus  answered : 
"I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life:  he  that  believeth  on 


240  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

me,  though  he  die,  yet  shall  he  live :  and  whosoever  liveth 
and  belie veth  on  me  shall  never  die"  {vv.  25,  26).  It  is 
evident  that  Martha's  idea  of  the  resurrection  was  that 
of  a  future  eschatological  event.  Jesus  expressed  no 
objection  to  this  idea,  but  gave  to  it  its  true  setting  and 
basis.  He  did  not  call  in  question  her  belief  in  a  physical 
resurrection  at  the  last  day,  but  placed  before  her  the  more 
inclusive  truth  that  he  is  the  giver  of  life;  that  faith 
should  be  fixed  upon  him  rather  than  upon  some  distant 
event;  that  the  life  which  he  bestows  involves  a  present 
victory  over  death.  Martha's  thought  was  directed  to 
one  future  crisis  in  which  life  should  conquer  death. 
Jesus  declared  that  life  wins  a  present  and  perpetual  vic- 
tory over  death ;  that  for  the  believer  death  is  robbed  of 
its  significance  and  its  power.  It  is  as  if  Jesus  had  said : 
The  truth  is  not  merely  that  in  some  future  seon  thy 
brother  shall  rise  from  the  state  of  death  and  attain  im- 
mortality ;  I  tell  you  that  he  is  already  death's  conqueror ; 
that  at  every  stage  of  his  existence  and  through  all  changes 
and  transformations  the  eternal  life  shall  triumph.  It  is 
possible  that  the  saying  of  Jesus :  "  I  am  the  resurrection," 
etc.,  was  intended  to  point  forward  to  the  raising  of 
Lazarus  which  followed.  But  if  so,  the  larger  meaning 
of  his  words  is  not  thereby  restricted.  Such  a  resurrec- 
tion would  be  but  a  special  example  of  his  life-giving 
power,  illustrating  the  truth  that  the  hope  of  future  life 
should  centre  in  him  and  in  the  gift  of  life  which  he 
bestows  rather  than  in  any  single  future  event. 

If  this  is  the  general  import  of  the  sayings  under  review, 
what  then  is  the  meaning  of  death  and  what  the  nature  of 
the  future  resurrection  "at  the  last  day"  which  is  not 
excluded  by  the  language  of  Jesus  on  the  subject?  Since 
the  life  which  conquers  death  is  qualitative  or  ethical,  it 
is  probable  that  death  bears  a  predominantly  ethical  char- 
acter. As  life  is  mucli  more  than  the  prolongation  of 
existence,  so  death  must  be  more  than  physical  decay  and 
dissolution.  Death  must  be  viewed  in  these  discourses  as 
includinof  the  forfeiture  of  the  true  ends  of  existence ;  as 
that  state  of  deprivation,  evil,  and  loss  in  which  the  per- 


ESCHATOLOGY  241 

sonality  in  some  way  falls  short  of  its  true  perfection. 
Resurrection,  contemplated  as  a  future  event,  is  therefore 
more  than  a  resuscitation  or  recovery  of  a  body  for  the 
soul;  it  is  the  recovery  of  the  total  personality  from  the 
state  of  death.  Under  what  form  this  state  of  death  is 
conceived  the  language  of  the  discourses  does  not  inform 
us ;  but  if  it  is  conceived  (as  by  Paul)  after  the  manner 
of  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  Sheol,  then  we  should  say  that 
resurrection  means  primarily  deliverance  from  the  under- 
world. But  there  is  no  trace  of  these  local  conceptions  in 
our  sources.  All  is  qualitative.  Death  is  a  state,  and  life 
is  a  character.  Accordingly,  resurrection,  whatever  else 
it  involves,  is  primarily  triumph  over  the  defeat  and  evil 
of  death  through  the  realization  of  the  destiny  which  is 
involved  in  eternal  life.  From  this  conception  the  nar- 
rowest idea  of  resurrection,  as  meaning  the  endowment  of 
the  soul  with  a  suitable  embodiment,  is  not  excluded,  but 
included,  as  the  less  is  included  in  the  greater.  From 
these  qualitative  conceptions  of  life,  death,  and  resurrec- 
tion, it  might  seem  natural  to  conclude  that  there  could  be 
no  resurrection  in  any  sense  for  unbelievers.  We  do  not, 
however,  find  this  conclusion  confirmed  by  the  language 
of  the  discourses,  which  speak  of  a  resurrection  of  judg- 
ment or  condemnation  as  well  as  of  a  resurrection  of  life 
(v.  29).  We  can  only  say,  therefore,  that  while  a  resur- 
rection, in  some  sense,  of  those  who  have  "  done  ill "  is 
affirmed,  it  must  have  a  widely  different  meaning  from 
that  which  is  associated  with  the  realization  of  eternal 
life.  The  elements  of  the  "  resurrection  of  life  "  we  can 
conjecture  with  considerable  plausibility  from  the  nature 
of  "life  "  and  of  "death  "  as  described  in  our  sources  ;  but 
what  meaning  resurrection  can  have  for  those  who  have 
not  the  life  we  are  not  told  and  can  only  infer  by  subtract- 
ing from  the  idea  of  resurrection  elements  which  belong 
to  the  very  nature  of  eternal  life.  We  certainly  cannot 
conclude  that  there  would  be  nothing  left.  At  least  the 
notions  of  a  prolongation  of  existence  and  of  a  corporeal 
embodiment  of  the  soul  might  remain. 

In  the  doctrine  of  judgment  we  observe  the  same  com- 


242  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS 

bination  of  present  and  future,  of  continuous  process  and 
final  crisis,  which  we  have  noticed  in  the  study  of  the 
parousia  and  the  resurrection.  But  the  former  aspect 
receives  the  greater  emphasis.  The  future  judgment 
seems  to  be  regarded  as  the  culmination  of  a  process 
whereby  divine  light  and  truth  are  testing  and  separating 
men.  Jesus  speaks  of  judging  men  while  he  lived  among 
them  on  earth  (v.  30;  viii.  16,  29;  ix.  39).  The  princi- 
ple which  underlies  this  moral  testing  of  men  is  most 
clearly  expressed  in  the  words :  "  This  is  the  judgement, 
that  the  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved  the 
darkness  rather  than  the  light ;  for  their  works  were  evil " 
(iii.  19).  Light  tests  all  things  by  revealing  them  in 
their  true  character.  Truth  judges  by  its  very  nature, 
and  its  discriminations  are  in  perfect  accord  with  reality. 
In  this  sense  of  judgment  it  was  an  essential  part  of 
Christ's  work  to  judge  men  (ix.  39).  He  divided  men 
into  those  who  accepted  and  those  who  rejected  his  truth. 
In  this  sense  he  occasioned  separation  and  division,  even 
among  friends,  as  the  Synoptic  discourses  assert  (Lk.  xii. 
51-53;  Mt.  X.  34,35). 

Christ  came  to  save  men,  but  he  could  not  save  without 
judging.  Salvation  involves  the  application  of  tests  and 
standards;  conformity  to  these  implies  approbation  as 
failure  and  refusal  involve  disapproval.  He  must  condemn 
the  evil  of  the  world  in  seeking  to  lift  men  out  of  that  evil 
and  in  bringing  them  into  the  realization  of  the  good.  Jesus 
sees  the  world  saved  only  as  he  sees  it  tested  and  sifted  and 
its  evil  repudiated.  "  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world : 
now  shall  the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out"  (xii.  31). 
But  this  process  by  which  the  world  is  tested,  its  good 
approved  and  fostered  and  its  evil  condemned,  by  no  means 
excludes  the  idea  of  a  future  final  judgment.  On  the 
contrary,  it  requires  it  as  any  process  implies  a  fulfilment, 
a  consummation.  Hence  we  read  of  a  judgment  which 
takes  place  "in  the  last  day"  (xii.  49)  and  of  a  "resurrec- 
tion of  judgment "  (v.  29)  which  doubtless  means,  eith-er  a 
resurrection  which  issues  in  a  condemnatory  judgment,  or 
a  resurrection  which  results  from  the  judgment  which  is 


ESCHATOLOGY  243 

already  outstanding  against  those  who  have  rejected  Christ 
(iii.  18).  The  final  judgment  is  evidently  regarded  as  the 
climax  and  issue  of  the  process  of  testing  Avhich  is  continu- 
ally going  on  through  the  operation  of  the  truth  upon 
the  minds  of  men.  The  future  is  already  implicit  in  the 
present ;  eternal  life  is  already  begun  here,  and  by  it  the 
"  resurrection  of  life  "  is  already  assured ;  God  is  already 
judging  the  world  through  Christ;  those  who  refuse  his 
truth  are  already  disapproved,  and  the  future  judgment  is 
viewed  as  the  end  of  a  process  which  is  going  forward 
constantly  in  the  life  of  every  man. 

There  is  an  apparent  contradiction  between  two  groups 
of  sayings  one  of  which  represents  Christ  as  asserting  that 
he  does  not  judge  men,  the  other  as  stating  that  he  does 
judge  them  :  "  I  judge  no  man  "  (viii.  15)  ;  "  If  a  man  hear 
my  sayings  and  keep  them  not,  I  judge  him  not :  for  I  came 
not  to  judge  the  world,  but  to  save  the  world"  (xii.  47). 
Yet  he  says :  ''  If  I  judge,  my  judgment  is  true  "  (viii.  16), 
and  even :  "  For  judgment  came  I  into  this  world  "  (ix. 
39).  The  discrepancy  is  partly  resolved  by  distinguishing 
between  Christ's  primary  object  in  coming  into  the  world 
and  an  object  which  was  secondary  and  incidental  to  that. 
His  primary  object  was  salvation,  not  judgment ;  to  rescue, 
not  to  condemn.  But  in  saving  Christ  was  compelled  to 
judge,  that  is,  to  test  and  to  separate  men,  approving  the 
good  and  condemning  the  evil  in  them.  A  further  distinc- 
tion which  it  is  often  useful  to  observe  is  that  between 
judging  in  the  neutral  sense  of  testing,  and  judging  in  the 
sense  of  condemning.  When,  for  example,  in  ix.  39,  he 
says  :  "  For  judgement  came  I  into  this  world,"  the  context 
explains  that  he  means  for  the  purpose  of  testing  men 
by  requiring  them  to  take  up  a  definite  attitude  towards 
the  divine  truth  which  he  had  brought  to  them.  To  those 
who  are  willing  to  be  led,  he  will  give  divine  light  and 
guidance  which  he  will  withhold  from  the  spiritually  proud 
and  self-sufficient.  He  did  not  come  to  condemn  but  to 
save  men.  But  since  saving  involves  testing,  and  since 
testing  necessitates  moral  approval  and  disapproval  accord- 
ing as  men  stand  the  test,  it  is  evident  that  indirectly  and 


244  THE   JOHANNINE   TEACHING    OF   JESUS 

incidentally  Jesus  is  compelled  to  judge  in  a  condemna- 
tory sense  those  who  wilfully  refuse  the  truth.  Hence  the 
saying :  "  I  judge  no  man.  Yea  and  if  I  judge,  my  judge- 
ment is  true  "  (viii.  15,  16). 

Although  the  Son  is  primarily  Saviour  and  not  Judge, 
yet  when  the  relations  between  salvation  and  judgment 
are  considered,  we  are  not  surprised  to  read  that  all  judg- 
ment has  been  committed  to  the  Son  (v.  22),  and  that  just 
because  he  is  the  Son  of  man  (v.  27).  Judgment  is  insep- 
arably bound  up  with  his  Messianic  mission.  He  brings 
truth  to  men  in  definite,  concrete  form ;  he  makes  God 
apprehensible  to  men,  so  that  their  attitude  towards  him 
becomes  one  of  definite  obedience  or  disobedience.  Yet, 
in  spite  of  these  sayings,  it  is  still  true  that  there  is  a  sense 
in  which  Christ  does  not  judge  men.  It  is  rather  his  word, 
his  truth,  which  is  represented  as  pronouncing  the  judg- 
ment of  condemnation  upon  the  disobedient.  "  If  any 
man  hear  my  sayings  and  keep  them  not,  I  judge  him 
not ;  the  word  that  I  spake,  the  same  shall  judge  him  in 
the  last  day"  (xii.  47,  48).  In  one  sense  the  Son  does 
not  judge  men ;  his  attitude  ever  remains  that  of  Saviour. 
It  is  his  truth  which  judges  them ;  in  other  words,  their 
attitude  towards  his  truth  itself  involves  their  judgment. 
This  is  only  another  form  of  stating  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  primary  and  the  secondary  aspects  of  his  mis- 
sion. He  comes  to  save ;  but  he  brings  to  men  an  absolute 
standard  of  truth  and  goodness.  By  that  they  are  tested. 
In  that  sense  he  judges  men.  If  they  repudiate  that  stand- 
ard, he  must  disapprove  and  reject  them.  In  that  sense, 
also,  his  saving  work  involves  a  judgment;  but  as  this 
judgment  is  inherent  in  men's  attitude  towards  the  truth, 
it  might  be  said  that  it  is  the  truth  itself  which  judges 
them.  Thus,  despite  the  verbal  variations  with  which  the 
matter  is  presented,  a  consistent  doctrine  of  judgment 
emerges  from  the  passages. 


PART  III 

THE  PRIMITIVE  APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 
CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTORY 

It  will  be  our  aim  in  this  part  of  our  work  to  present  a 
brief  sketch  of  the  earlier  and  simpler  forms  of  teaching 
which  obtained  in  the  Church  of  the  apostolic  age.  But 
no  sooner  is  this  task  undertaken  than  we  find  ourselves 
in  the  midst  of  the  most  divergent  views  respecting  the 
materials  to  be  employed.  The  questions  at  issue  chiefly 
concern  the  epistles  which  bear  the  names  of  James  and 
Peter.  It  is  well  known  that,  even  in  the  early  Church, 
the  genuineness  of  2  Peter  was  widely  doubted,  and  this 
doubt  has  been  shared,  in  modern  times,  by  many  critics 
of  all  schools.  The  Epistle  of  James  and  1  Peter,  on  the 
contrary,  have,  until  recent  times,  been  regarded  by  most 
scholars  as  genuine.  The  Tiibingen  school  denied  the 
genuineness  of  both  these  writings,  and  referred  them  to 
the  second  century.  The  former  was  regarded  as  an  illus- 
tration of  a  spiritualized  Judaism,  which  aimed  to  avoid 
certain  practical  consequences  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification by  faith ;  the  latter,  as  .the  work  of  a  Pauline 
Clu'istian  who  was  seeking  to  compromise  the  Gentile  and 
the  Jewish  tendencies  of  thought  in  the  Church.  Although 
these  views  have  been  largely  modified  by  the  successors 
of  this  school,  these  scholars  still  regard  both  these  epistles 
as  spurious,  and  as  illustrating  the  later,  rather  than  the 
primitive,  teaching  of  the  early  Church.  Harnack  regards 
the  Epistle  of  James  as  a  compilation  made  about  130  a.d., 

246 


246  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

and  refers  1  Peter  to  the  reign  of  Domitian  (81-96), 
although  he  admits  that  it  may  have  been  written  a  decade 
or  two  earlier.  He  believes  that  it  was  written  either  by 
Paul  or  by  one  who  had  been  strongly  influenced  by  him.^ 
Scholars  who  maintain  the  genuineness  of  both  these 
writings  are  divided  in  opinion  with  respect  to  their  rela- 
tion to  the  Pauline  epistles.  In  regard  to  James  the 
principal  question  is,  whether  his  discussion  of  faith  and 
works  presupposes  Paul's  teaching  on  those  subjects  or 
is  independent  of  it.  Certain  coincidences  are  observable 
between  1  Peter  and  Paul's  doctrinal  letters.  The  ques- 
tion is,  did  Peter's  language  influence  Paul's,  or  vice  versa? 
Or,  are  these  coincidences  such  as  to  establish  any  direct 
interdependence?  Respecting  the  Epistle  of  James,  the 
more  usual  opinion  is  that  it  is  pre-Pauline.  The  more 
common  view  refers  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter  to  the 
apostle's  later  life  (60-67).  Opinion  is  divided  on  the 
question,  whether  it  is,  in  any  proper  sense,  dependent 
upon  Paul's  writings. 

It  is  outside  the  i)lan  of  the  present  work  to  enter  at 
length  into  the  discussion  of  these  vexed  and  difficult 
questions.  For  such  discussion  I  must  refer  the  reader  to 
the  standard  treatises  on  New  Testament  Introduction  and 
the  History  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  The  position  of  the 
more  radical  scholars  of  Germany  will  be  found  presented 
(not  without  important  variations  of  view)  in  such  works 
as  Weizsacker's  Apostolic  Age,  Pfleiderer's  Das  Urchristen- 
thum,  the  Eiiileitungen  of  Holtzmann  and  Jiilicher,  and 
the  CliTonologie  of  Harnack.  Conclusions  more  in  accord 
with  tradition  are  maintained  by  Weiss,  Salmon,  Gloag, 
and  Zahn  in  their  Introductions.  I  would  especially  com- 
mend for  its  thoroughness  the  elaborate  Introduction  to 
the  Epistle  of  James  by  Mayor,  in  his  Commentary,  in 
which  he  assigns  to  it  an  early  date  (40-50).  Ramsay's 
discussion  of  the  date  of  1  Peter  (about  80,  as  he  believes), 
in  his  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  (pp.  279-294),  pre- 
sents the  subject  in  a  new  light  and  is  of  special  historical 
interest.     This  date  would,  indeed,  preclude  the  genuine- 

1  Chronologic^  pp.  451  sq. ;  485  sq. 


INTRODUCTORY  247 

ness  of  the  epistle  if  the  tradition  that  Peter  suffered 
martyrdom  at  Rome  during  the  Neronian  persecution  (ca. 
67,  68)  be  correct.  But  the  traditions  respecting  Peter's 
residence  at  Rome  are  obscure  and  conflicting,  and,  in  his 
opinion,  some  of  the  patristic  statements  respecting  it 
would  require  us  to  suppose  that  he  lived  on  to  a  much 
later  time  than  that  of  Nero.  On  this  supposition,  the 
first  Epistle  might  still  be  genuine,  even  if  written  so 
late  as  the  year  80  A.D. 

In  view  of  these  disputed  questions,  writers  on  the 
Theolog}^  of  the  New  Testament  differ  considerably  in 
their  judgment  respecting  the  sources  of  the  teaching  of 
the  primitive  Church  which  are  available  for  their  use. 
Those  who  adopt  the  conclusions  of  the  radical  school, 
as  Immer  and  Holtzmann,  find  very  scanty  materials  in 
the  New  Testament  for  the  study  of  Christian  teaching 
during  the  period  between  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the  epis- 
ties  of  Paul.  The  ideas  which  obtained  among  the  early 
Christians  during  the  first  two  decades  after  Christ 
(ca.  29-52)  must  be  gathered  from  the  early  chapters  of 
Acts  (with  generous  allowances  for  later  influences  even 
here)  and  by  inferences  from  writings  which  were  com- 
posed long  after  this  period.  As  compared  with  Paul,  the 
other  New  Testament  writings  are  relatively  still  further 
removed  from  the  time  of  Jesus  by  Harnack  and  McGif- 
fert,  who  date  Paul's  epistles  four  or  five  years  earlier 
than  the  common  view,  assigning  the  great  doctrinal  let- 
ters to  the  years  52  or  53,  instead  of  57  or  58.  Bovon 
uses  only  the  narratives  in  Acts  as  sources  for  the  knowl- 
edge of  primitive  Christianity.^ 

Most  English  writers  on  the  New  Testament,  and  some 
of  the  ablest  German  scholars  also,  hold  that  we  have  in 
James  and  in  1  Peter,  at  any  rate,  examples  of  the  earlier 
and  more  primitive  types  of  apostolic  teaching.  Reuss 
and  Lechler  regard  James  as  pre-Pauline,  while  Weiss, 

1  Dr.  McGiffert  thinks  that  the  Epistle  of  James  was  written  by  some 
Hellenistic  Jew,  "  where  or  by  whom  we  do  not  know,"  and  that  1  Peter 
was  written  by  a  Paiilinist,  possibly  Barnabas.  Apos.  Age,  pp.  579  sq. ; 
693  sq. 


248  THE   PKIMITIYE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

Beyschlag,  and  Zalin  treat  both  James  and  1  Peter  as 
examples  of  primitive,  apostolic  doctrine.  This  use  of 
these  epistles  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  view  that 
they  were  written  before  Paul  wrote,  bat  only  that  they 
represent  the  earlier  and  simpler  form  of  teaching  which 
prevailed  among  the  first  Christians  before  the  content  of 
Christian  belief  was  subjected  to  analysis  and  argument, 
as  in  the  writings  of  Paul  and  John,  and  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews. 

The  Biblical  theologian  is  confronted  with  the  question 
how  to  proceed  in  view  of  this  uncertainty  respecting  his 
sources.  Desirable  as  it  is  that  the  points  at  issue  should 
be  determined,  we  must  candidly  admit  that  in  the  present 
state  of  our  knowledge  they  cannot  be  decided  with  cer- 
tainty. Meantime,  it  is  necessary  that  the  Biblical  theolo- 
gian should  adopt  a  working  hypothesis  for  his  construction 
of  the  apostolic  theology.  He  must  follow  that  view  of 
the  literature  which  seems  to  him  most  probable  until  his- 
torical and  critical  research  can  reach  conclusions  which 
shall  be  entitled  to  take  rank  as  assured  results  of  science. 
To  secure  these  results  is  the  task  of  historical  criticism. 
It  is  upon  the  literary  critic  and  the  historian  of  the  apos- 
tolic period,  primarily,  that  the  difficulty  presses.  While 
the  Biblical  theologian  is  embarrassed  by  uncertainty  on 
such  questions,  his  embarrassment  chiefly  concerns  the 
arrangement  of  his  materials.  His  primary  task  is,  not  to 
trace  the  development  of  thought  within  the  New  Testa- 
ment period  (although  every  aid  for  so  doing  will  be  of 
great  service  to  him),  but  to  expound  in  systematic  form 
the  contents  of  the  New  Testament  books.  The  doctrinal 
content  of  an  epistle,  for  example,  may  be  correctly  and 
adequately  exhibited,  whatever  view  be  held  respecting  its 
author  or  its  date.  It  makes  no  essential  difference  for 
our  purpose  whether  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Peter  are 
pre-Pauline  or  post-Pauline.  What  they  teach  must  be 
depicted  in  substantially  the  same  way,  whetlier  it  be  done 
in  an  earlier  or  a  later  part  of  our  work.  Indeed,  the 
mere  chronological  relation  of  books  is  of  comparatively 
small  importance  for  Biblical  theology.     Of  much  greater 


INTRODUCTORY  249 

moment  is  the  logical  order  —  the  order  which  may  be 
supposed  to  represent  the  development  of  religious  ideas 
from  the  more  simple  and  elementary  to  their  more  elabo- 
rate and  reasoned  forms. 

The  Tiibingen  criticism  looked  upon  the  Book  of  Acts 
as  a  Paulinist  production  designed  to  harmonize  the 
views  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and  assigned  it  to  the  second 
century.  Their  successors,  however,  have  ceased  to  as- 
cribe this  doctrinal  "  tendency  "  to  the  book,  and  the  drift 
of  criticism  has  been  moving  steadily  towards  the  recog- 
nition of  an  earlier  date.  Jiilicher  scouts  the  denial  that 
the  book  was  written  by  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel, 
and  dates  it  from  about  100-105.  Harnack  rejects  the 
"tendency"  theory  of  the  book,  ascribes  it  to  one  who 
was  familiar  with  Paul's  teaching,  and  assigns  it  to  the 
period  80-93.  Ramsay  favors  a  date  not  far  from  81 ; 
Sanday  gives  80.^  The  view  that  the  Acts  is  a  "ten- 
dency "  writing,  full  of  artificial  combinations  and  studied 
exaggerations,  irreconcilable  with  the  Pauline  letters  and 
generally  untrustworthy  as  a  source  of  history  or  theology 
in  the  apostolic  age,  is  now  so  generally  abandoned  that 
one  needs  make  no  defence  of  his  use  of  the  book  as  pre- 
senting a  substantially  correct  account  of  the  events  which 
it  professes  to  record.  Like  the  third  Gospel,  the  Acts  is, 
no  doubt,  based  upon  such  documents  and  memoranda  as 
were  available  for  the  author's  purpose.  Just  now  critical 
scholarship  is  eagerly  engaged  in  the  pursuit  of  hypotheses 
respecting  these  sources,  but  our  present  task  need  not 
concern  itself  with  them.  I  shall  sketch  the  doctrinal 
contents  of  the  "  Petrine  "  portions  of  the  Book  of  Acts 
(chs.  i.-viii.  and  certain  passages  in  x.-xv.)  in  this  part 
of  the  volume,  and  occasionally  refer  to  the  narratives  of 
Paul's  experiences  and  missionary  teaching  in  connection 
with  the  study  of  the  Pauline  theology. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle 
of  James  is  involved  in  some  doubt.  Eusebius  places  it 
among  the  Antilegomeyia.  He  says :  "  It  is  considered 
spurious  ;  nevertheless  it  is  used  in  most  af  the  churches."  ^ 

1  Cf.  his  remarks  on  the  general  subject,  Inspiration,  pp.  318-330. 

2  Ecc.  Hist.  II.  23. 


250  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

Jerome  speaks  of  it  as  having  gradually  obtained  authority. 
It  appears  not  to  have  gained  general  acceptance  until 
about  the  year  400  A.d.  It  is  not  in  the  Muratorian 
canon,  nor  is  it  quoted  by  Tertullian.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  apparent  traces  of  an  acquaintance  with 
the  epistle  on  the  part  of  Clement  of  Rome,  the  Didache 
and  Hermas}  and  Irenseus  quite  certainly  alludes  to  it 
when  he  writes:  "Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  to  him  for  righteousness;  and  he  was  called  the 
friend  of  God"  (^cf.  Jas.  ii.  23).2  The  epistle  is  contained 
in  the  ancient  Syriac  version  (ca.  150)  and  is  quoted  by 
the  Syrian  Church  fathers.  Origen  is  the  first  who  refers 
to  the  name  of  the  author :  "  For  though  it  be  called  faith, 
if  it  be  without  works,  it  is  dead  as  we  read  in  the 
epistle  current  as  that  of  James."  ^  Jerome  ascribed  it  to 
James,  the  Lord's  "brother,"  that  is,  in  his  view,  his 
cousin,  James  the  son  of  Alphseus. 

At  the  Reformation  doubts  concerning  its  canonicity 
were  revived.  On  account  of  the  supposed  divergence  of 
its  teaching  from  that  of  Paul  respecting  justification  by 
faith,  Luther  pronounced  it  an  epistle  of  straw,  that  is, 
worthless  in  comparison  with  those  of  Peter,  Paul,  and 
John.  Erasmus,  Grotius,  and  others  formed  a  similar 
estimate  of  the  epistle.  To  the  views  of  the  German 
radical  school  reference  has  already  been  made. 

The  question  of  authorship  is  also  complicated  by  the 
well-known  dispute  as  to  the  meaning  of  "  the  brethren  " 
of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels.  On  that  subject  I  adopt  the 
so-called  Hel vidian  theory  that  they  were  real  brothers  of 
Jesus,  younger  children  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  I  therefore 
hold  that,  according  to  the  probabilities  of  the  case,  our 
epistle  was  written  b}^  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  mentioned 
in  Gal.  i.  19  and  1  Cor.  xv.  7,  and  known  in  ecclesiastical 
tradition  as  the  Bishop  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem  and  as 
James  "the  just."  What  we  know  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment of  his  prominence  in  the  Jewish  branch  of  the  Church, 

1  Cf.  Mayor,  Commentary^  p.  1.  sq. 

2  Against  Heresies^  IV.  16.  2. 

2  Comm.  in  Johan.  0pp.  IV.  p.  306. 


INTRODUCTORY  251 

and  from  tradition  respecting  his  life  and  character,  would 
accord  with  this  supposition.  I  think  that  the  language  and 
thought  of  the  epistle  also  agrees  well  with  the  same  con- 
clusion. 

No  data  exist  for  deciding  the  question  whether  the 
epistle  was  written  with  or  without  reference  to  Paul's 
discussion  of  justification  by  faith.  An  early  date  (within 
the  period  from  about  45  to  50),  involving  independence  of 
Paul,  is  maintained  by  such  scholars  as  Ritschl,  Weiss, 
Beyschlag,  Mayor,  and  Zahn.  Professor  Sanday  thinks  the 
epistle  should  be  put  as  late  as  possible  (ca.  61),  because,  as 
he  thinks,  it  implies  a  settled  state  of  things  in  the  churches 
addressed.  He  agrees,  however,  with  Bishop  Lightfoot, 
that  James  wrote  without  direct  reference  to  Paul's  argu- 
ments. His  references  to  justification  are  thought  to  be 
sufficiently  accounted  for  by  the  currency  of  questions  on 
the  subject  in  the  Jewish  schools.^  Dr.  Hort  holds  a 
similar  view  of  the  date,  but  thinks  that  the  passage,  ii.  14- 
26,  must  have  had  in  view  some  misuse  or  misunderstand- 
ing of  Paul's  teaching.2  To  my  mind  the  mere  question  of 
date  is  of  minor  interest.  The  one  point  which  seems  to 
me  clear  is  that  there  is  no  polemic  on  either  side  between 
James  and  Paul.  I  quite  agree  with  Sanday  when  he  says  : 
"  If  we  suppose  direct  polemics  between  the  two  apostles, 
then  both  seem  strangely  to  miss  the  mark.  Each  would  be 
arguing  against  something  which  the  other  did  not  hold."^ 
The  earlier  date,  however,  seems  to  me  to  be  favored  by 
such  considerations  as  the  following:  (a)  The  Jewish 
Christians  of  the  dispersion  who  are  addressed  are  still 
within  Judaism.  The  church  is  still  called  a  synagogue 
(ii.  2).  (5)  There  is  no  reference  to  circumcision,  the 
law,  etc.,  —  themes  which  became  prominent  and  widely 
discussed  within  the  decade  50-60.  (c)  What  is  said  of 
faith  and  works  so  completely  avoids  the  point  of  Paul's 
discussions  that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  it  to  have  been 
written  with  the  knowledge  of   them.      (c?)    The  earlier 

1  Inspiration,  p.  845. 

2  Judaistic  Christianity,  pp.  147-149. 
8  Op.  cit.,  p.  345. 


252  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

date  is  favored  by  the  Judaic  tone  of  the  epistle  ;  by  the 
absence  of  any  reference  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  its  consequences,  or  to  any  of  the  questions  which  were 
rife  from  about  the  middle  of  the  first  century  onwards  con- 
cerning Gentile  Christians.^  Sanday's  argument  for  a  late 
date,  to  the  effect  that  James  would  not  be  likely  to  write  a 
doctrinal  epistle  unless  influenced  to  do  so  by  the  example 
of  Paul,  seems  to  me  to  be  of  doubtful  force.  Even  if  we 
insist  upon  calling  the  writing  in  question  a  letter,  and  not, 
as  many  do,  a  practical  treatise  on  Christian  duties,  there 
is  no  apparent  reason  why  the  relation  of  the  "pillar" 
apostle  James  to  the  Jewish-Christian  churches  might  not 
have  been  such  as  to  make  the  writing  to  them  of  a  message 
of  comfort  and  instruction  quite  natural.  I  cannot  see  that 
the  writing  of  a  doctrinal  epistle  within  the  first  generation 
of  Christians  is  a  fact  which  specially  "  needs  to  be  ac- 
counted for,"  provided  the  relations  between  James  and  the 
Jewish  Christians  were  such  as  we  have  reason  to  believe 
them  to  have  been.^ 

The  external  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  1  Peter  is 
abundant.  Renan  justly  says  that  this  epistle  is  "  one  of  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament  which  are  the  most  anciently 
and  most  unanimously  cited  as  authentic."  It  is  found  in 
the  most  ancient  versions,  is  cited  as  a  Homologomnenoyi 
by  Eusebius,  and  attested  by  the  Church  fathers  from 
Papias  and  Polycarp  onwards.  With  respect  to  the  time 
of  its  composition  most  scholars  hold  that  it  exhibits  a 
knowledge  of  Paul's  epistles,  especially  of  Romans  and 
Ephesians.  Weiss  stands  alone  in  assigning  to  it  a  date  as 
early  as  53  or  54.  Most  scholars  who  hold  its  genuineness 
have  placed  it  between  the  years  60  and  67.  Zahn  in  his 
Mnleitung^  p.  92,  assigns  it  to  63  or  64.  The  argument  of 
Ramsay,  for  a  late  date  (ca.  80)  already  alluded  to,  which 
is  derived  from  the  supposed  correspondence  between  the 
references  to  persecution  in  the  epistle  and  the  policy  of  the 
Flavian  emperors  towards  the  Church,  is  forcibly  answered 
by  Sanday,  who  adduces  sufficient  evidence  that  the  methods 

1  Cf.  Mayor,  Commentary,  p.  cxx.  sq. 

2  Cf.  Sanday,  Inspiration,  p.  344. 


INTRODUCTOKY  253 

and  grounds  of  persecution  presupposed  in  the  epistle  al- 
ready obtained  in  the  time  of  Nero,  and  that,  so  far  as  such 
considerations  are  concerned,  the  letter  might  have  been 
written  as  early  as  QQ.^ 

To  me  the  proof  of  a  literary  dependence  of  our  epistle 
upon  the  Paulines  seems  quite  inadequate.  The  supposed 
coincidences  are  mostly  slight,  the  agreements  extending 
only  to  a  word  or  two.  Several  of  the  parallels  may  be 
explained  by  a  common  use  of  the  Septuagint.  There  are 
no  marked  doctrinal  correspondences  with  respect  to  such 
subjects,  for  example,  as  justification  or  the  parousia.  The 
''  dogmatic  watchwords  "  of  Paul  are  entirely  wanting  in 
our  epistle.  So  far  as  such  considerations  go,  they  leave 
the  date  as  uncertain  as  are  the  place  of  writing  and  the 
nationality  of  the  persons  addressed.^  The  one  point  about 
which  we  may  feel  a  high  degree  of  confidence  —  and  hap- 
pily it  is  the  only  one  of  great  importance  for  our  present 
purpose  —  is  that  the  epistle  is  genuine,  and  exhibits  to  us 
the  more  primitive  type  of  a^DOstolic  teaching  which  pre- 
ceded and,  to  some  extent,  continued  to  exist  contempora- 
neously with  the  more  developed  theology  of  Paul. 

Between  the  Epistle"  of  Jude  and  2  Peter  there  is 
obviously  some  kind  of  interdependence.  It  is  therefore 
proper,  for  our  purpose,  to  treat  these  two  epistles  to- 
gether. The  data  for  deciding  the  questions  of  their 
authorship,  date,  and  purpose  are  peculiarly  scanty.  The 
former  has  been  ascribed  to  each  one  of  the  Judes  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament,  —  to  the  Jude  of  the  apos- 
tolic list  (Lk.  vi.  15 ;  Acts  i.  13),  who  in  Mark,  and  also 
in  Matthew  according  to  the  more  probable  text,  is  called 
Thaddceus ;  to  "  Judas  called  Barsabbas,"  who  was  sent 
with  Silas  to  Antioch  (Acts  xv.  22,  27,  32) ;  but  much 
more  commonly  to  Judas  the  brother  of  Jesus  (Mk.  vi.  3 ; 
Mt.  xiii.  53^.  The  only  reference  to  the  author  in  the 
epistle  itself  is  in  verse  1,  where  he  calls  himself  a  brother 

1  The  Expositor,  June,  1893,  pp.  406-412, 

2  To  me  it  seems  probable  that  the  epistle  was  addressed  to  mixed 
congregations,  in  which  Gentile  converts  predominated.  See  i.  14  ;  ii.  10; 
iii.  6  ;  iv.  3.     So  Lechler,  Beyschlag,  Farrar,  Salmon. 


254  THE   PKIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

of  James.  No  argument  favoring  the  writing  of  the  letter 
by  a  primitive  apostle  can  be  drawn  from  combining  this 
expression  with  Luke's  designation  'louSa?  'la/cco/3ov,  since 
by  that  name  is  probably  meant  Judas  the  so7i,  and  not 
the  brother,  of  James,  that  is,  of  a  James  otherwise  un- 
known to  us.  If  the  writing  of  the  Epistle  of  James  by 
tlie  Lord's  natural  brother  be  regarded  as  probable,  then 
the  most  natural  supposition  is  that  our  epistle  was  written 
by  another  broLher.  The  prominence  of  James  in  the  early 
Church  might,  not  unnaturally,  lead  Jude  to  authenticate 
and  commend  his  letter  by  naming  himself  as  "the  brother 
of  James." 

That  the  book  is  not  mentioned  by  the  earlier  ecclesi- 
astical writers  may  be  due,  in  part,  to  its  minor  importance. 
It  was  included  in  the  ancient  Latin  version,  but  omitted 
from  the  Peshito.  Eusebius  classed  it  among  the  dis- 
puted books,  although  he  mentions  its  wide  recognition. 
It  is  attested  by  the  Muratorian  fragment,  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  and  Tertullian.  Jerome  tells  us  that  objec- 
tions were  felt  to  it  on  account  of  its  references  to  apoc- 
ryphal writings.  Similar  scruples  were  entertained  by 
Luther  and  Calvin.  The  Tubingen  school  held  that  the 
heresies  which  it  opposes  were  those  of  second  century 
Gnosticism  and  regarded  it  as  a  late  Judaizing  writing. 
Its  apostolic  authorship  (in  any  sense)  is  denied  by  most 
German  critics.  Pfieiderer  says  it  cannot  be  earlier  than 
150  A.D.  Jiilicher  suggests  the  period  100-180  a.d.  ; 
Harnack,  100-130  a.d.  Von  Soden  expresses  doubts  re- 
specting its  authorship,  but  says  that  the  possibility  that 
a  younger  brother  of  Jesus,  whose  missionary  labors  had 
led  him  into  Gentile-Christian  circles,  may  have  written 
the  letter  about  80-90,  cannot  be  disproved.  Among 
recent  writers  who  are  favorable  to  the  genuineness  of 
our  epistle  are  Weiss,  Beyschlag,  Salmon,  Plummer,  and 
Sanday. 

It  is  well  known  that  2  Peter  is  the  most  weakly 
attested  of  all  the  New  Testament  books.  No  clear  rec- 
ognition of  its  canonicity  before  Origen  has  been  made 
out,  and  he  mentions  the  fact  that  its  genuineness  was 


INTRODUCTORY  255 

doubted.  Eusebius  says  that  the  epistle  was  not  gener- 
ally embodied  among  the  sacred  books ;  but  since  it  ap- 
peared useful  to  many,  it  was  studiously  read  with  the 
other  Scriptures.^  The  councils  of  Laodicea  and  Carthage 
(363  and  397  a.d.)  adopted  the  epistle  into  their  lists, 
and  from  about  that  period  we  may  date  its  general 
reception. 

It  would  lead  me  too  far  to  rehearse  tfie  arguments 
which  are  employed  in  the  controversy  over  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  epistle.  They  are  briefly  summarized  by 
Dr.  Sanday  in  his  lectures  on  Inspiration,  pp.  382-385. 
Two  points  to  which  prominence  has  recently  been  given 
may  be  noticed.  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott  ^  and  Canon 
Farrar^  have  sought  to  show  that  the  author  borrowed 
from  the  Antiquities  of  Josephus  (published  93  a.d.)  — 
a  supposition  which  would  be  fatal  to  its  genuineness. 
This  contention  has  been  ably  answered  by  Warfield*  and 
Salmon,^  who  show  that  the  coincidences  are  in  words 
rather  than  in  ideas,  and  in  not  very  unusual  words,  and 
that  they  are  not  found  in  brief  compass  or  in  the  same 
sequence  or  connection.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that 
between  the  recently  discovered  Apocalypse  of  Peter  and 
2  Peter  there  were  noticeable  resemblances.  The  sugges- 
tion lies  near  to  hand  that  they  are  by  the  same  author. 
Dr.  Sanday  inclines  to  this  supposition. 

The  obvious  interdependence  between  2  Peter  and  Jude 
has  more  commouly  been  explained  by  supposing  the  pri- 
ority of  the  latter.  Spitta,  however,  elaborately  defends 
the  contrary  view.^  In  either  case  the  interdependence 
is  not  necessarily  inconsistent  with  the  apostolic  author- 
ship of  both  writings.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the 
apostle  might  appropriate,  with  adaptations,  the  language 
of  the  shorter  epistle  as  fitly  describing  the  false  teachers 
whom  he  wishes  to  rebuke.     The  suggestion  of  Jeroine  is 

1  Ecc.  Hist.  iii.  3. 

2  The  Expositor,  1882,  p.  49. 

8  The  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  Bk.  ii.  ch.  ix. 

4  Southern  Fresh.  Eeview,  1883. 

5  Int.  to  JV.  T.     Lect.  xxv. 

®  Der  zweite  Brief  d.  Petrus  u.  der  Brief  Judas,  1885. 


256  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

an  interesting  one,  that  in  view  of  Peter's  probable  defi- 
ciency in  the  knowledge  of  Greek,  the  differences  between 
his  two  epistles  are  to  be  explained  by  his  employment 
in  their  composition  of  different  interpreters.  The  most 
recent  German  writers  pronounce  almost  unanimously 
against  its  genuineness.  Among  other  recent  scholars 
who  incline  to  the  same  conclusion  are  Hatch,  Sanday, 
and  Ramsay.  The  genuineness  is  defended  by  Plumptre, 
Lumby,  Plummer,  Salmon,  and  Spitta.  Huther,  Weiss, 
and  Farrar  remain  undecided.  For  my  part,  I  find  the 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  belief  in  its  genuineness  quite 
insurmountable.  They  are  such  as  these :  The  author 
quotes  the  errorists  as  referring  to  the  first  generation  of 
Christians  as  ''the  fathers"  (iii.  4),  thereby  betrajdng  the 
late  date  of  the  epistle,  since  such  a  mode  of  expression 
could  not  have  been  in  use  within  the  lifetime  of  Peter. 
He  also  betrays  the  late  date  of  his  writing  by  reckoning 
Paul's  epistles  among  the  ypa(j)aL^  thus  placing  them  upon 
a  level  with  the  Old  Testament  (iii.  15,  16).  He  refers 
to  widespread  doubt  respecting  the  near  return  of  Christ 
as  existing  in  his  time  (iii.  3,  4).  He  describes  the  heresies 
which  he  rebukes,  now  as  if  already  present,  and  now  as 
if  future  (^cf.  iii.  3  with  iii.  4,  5),  as  though  he  was  really 
living  in  the  midst  of  them,  but  was  trying  to  place  him- 
self back  in  thought  into  the  apostolic  age  and  to  speak 
of  them  as  future.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  imagine 
Peter  using  the  language  of  this  epistle  on  any  of  these 
subjects.  The  marked  difference  in  style  and  ideas  be- 
tween this  epistle  and  1  Peter  also  creates  a  very  consider- 
able difficulty. 

As  I  have  already  intimated,  the  Biblical  theologian 
cannot  help  feeling  somewhat  embarrassed  in  his  work  by 
the  existing  uncertainty  respecting  the  authorship  and 
date  of  some  of  the  books  which  constitute  his  material. 
He  can  only  follow  what  seems  to  him  to  be  the  probabili- 
ties and  adopt  a  working  hypothesis.  He  can,  at  least, 
expound  the  contents  of  the  books  themselves,  although 
he  may  feel  restricted  in  drawing  confident  conclusions  in 
regard  to  certain  points  of  history  and  comparative  the- 


INTRODUCTORY  257 

ology  in  the  early  Church.  I  shall  accordingly  summa- 
rize the  teaching  of  the  books  which  I  have  noticed  in  this 
chapter  as  representing,  at  least  approximately,  the  primi- 
tive apostolic  teaching.  The  writings  may  not  all  be  so 
early  as  the  traditional  view  supposes.  It  is  possible  that 
some  of  them  fall  outside  the  apostolic  age.  In  any  case, 
they  are  the  principal  sources  of  our  knowledge  of  the 
simpler  and  less  elaborated  style  of  teaching  which  the 
New  Testament  presents  and  which  must,  on  that  account, 
stand  in  a  certain  contrast  with  the  other  apostolic  writings. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  DISCOURSES  IN  THE  ACTS 

The  material  of  which  we  have  now  to  take  account 
consists  mainly  of  fragmentary  reports  of  certain  dis- 
courses and  defences  of  the  apostle  Peter.  To  these  must 
be  added  a  prayer  of  the  congregation  (iii.  24  sq.}^  Philip's 
conversation  with  the  Ethiopian  chamberlain  (viii.  30  sq.}^ 
and  the  defence  of  the  almoner  Stephen  before  the  Sanhe- 
drin  (ch.  vii.).  Of  importance  for  our  purpose  also  are 
the  forms  and  customs  of  the  first  Christians  and,  espe- 
cially, the  differences  which  arose  over  tlie  terms  on  which 
Gentile  converts  should  be  admitted  to  the  Church,  and 
the  deliberations  of  the  apostolic  convention  at  which 
those  differences  were  adjusted.  The  first  part  of  the 
Book  of  Acts  is  the  principal  source  of  our  knowledge  of 
the  life  and  teaching  of  tlie  early  Church,  and,  while  these 
chapters  do  not  tell  us  all  that  we  should  like  to  know, 
they  do  furnish  us  a  clear  idea  of  the  relations  of  the 
earliest  Cliristians  to  their  ancestral  religion  and  of  the 
principal  points  which  they  emphasized  in  their  efforts  to 
win  men  to  belief  in  the  messiahship  of  Jesus. 

We  have  seen,  in  our  study  of  the  Gospels,  that  the 
immediate  disciples  of  Christ  did  not  suppose  that  in  be- 
coming Christians  they  had  ceased  to  be  adherents  of  the 
Jewish  religion.  Tliey  continued  their  attendance  upon 
the  worship  of  the  synagogue  and  temple  and  their  con- 
formity, in  general,  to  the  requirements  of  the  Jewish 
law.  Their  Master  had,  indeed,  taught  them  the  minor 
importance  of  all  ceremonial  observances,  but  he  had  not 
required  them  to  discontinue  the  practice  of  Jewish  rites. 
He  had  given  them  principles  —  such  as  that  of  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  law  in  the  gospel  —  which  were  destined  to 

258 


THE   DISCOURSES   IN   THE   ACTS  259 

lead  to  the  discontinuance  of  their  practice  of  the  Jewish 
ceremonial ;  but  he  preferred  that  this  result  should  be 
accomplished  gradually  through  the  processes  of  their  own 
growth  and  experience.  He  did  not  wish  the  old  customs 
and  forms  to  be  destroyed  except  by  being  replaced  by 
more  adequate  beliefs  and  practices. 

It  was  impossible,  however,  for  the  disciples  to  continue 
indefinitely  in  the  attitude  which  they  at  first  assumed. 
They  had  adopted  the  belief  that  Jesus  .was  the  Messiah. 
This  belief  made  the  difference  between  Christians  and 
Jews  and  would  be  certain  to  compel  their  ultimate  sepa- 
rlp-tion  from  Judaism.  The  natural  development  of  their 
Christian  faith,  and  the  course  of  events  which  was  certain 
to  issue  from  it,  would  make  it  inevitable  that  they  must 
either  go  forward  and  carry  out  the  principles  of  Christ  to 
their  logical  issue,  or  go  backward  and  imperil  their  alle- 
giance to  Christ  by  adhering  to  the  legal  system.  And 
such  proved  to  be  the  logic  of  events.  One  of  the  most 
interesting  points  in  the  history  of  the  primitive  Church  is 
the  development  of  the  Church's  consciousness  of  its  Chris- 
tian genius  ;  the  gradual  realization  of  what  its  relation  to 
Christ  and  his  salvation  involved  and  required.  It  was 
inevitable  that  the  emergence  from  Judaism  into  Christian- 
ity, in  its  full  import,  should  be  slow,  and  attended  by  many 
perplexities.  Some  would  accomplish  it  more  readily  than 
others ;  some  would  seek  to  maintain  the  two  inconsistent 
standpoints.  The  great  historical  interest  attaching  to  the 
early  chapters  of  Acts  arises  from  the  fact  that  they  enable 
us  to  trace  the  steps  of  this  process  by  which  the  Church 
developed  its  Christian  consciousness. 

We  learn  from  the  Gospels  that  the  two  principal  points  | 
in  which  the  disciples  failed  to  understand  their  Master's  " 
mission  were,  first,  the_  nature  of  his  Kingdom,  and,  second, 
the  necessity  of  his  death*  Their  difficulties  in  regard  to 
both  were  largely  due  to  their  Jewish  training.  They  had 
grown  up  in  the  belief  that  the  Messianic  Kingdom  was 
to  be  an  emancipated  and  triumphant  Israel,  and  that  the 
Messiah  who  should  found  it  was  to  be  a  mighty  King. 
The  idea  that  he  should  suffer  and  die  was  contrary  to  all 


260  THE  PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

their  inherited  beliefs.  Hence  we  find  the  first  disciples, 
notwithstanding  their  belief  in  Jesus'  messiahship,  protest- 
ing against  his  death,  and  wondering  when  the  time  would 
come  when  his  real  kingly  power  should  be  manifested  in 
the  restitution  of  the  nation.  The  representations  of  Acts 
on  this  subject  accord  entirely  with  the  description  given 
in  the  Gospels,  and  enable  us  to  see  how  the  Christian 
community  gradually  came  to  apprehend  the  principles  of 
Jesus  concerning  his  work  and  Kingdom. 

The  time  soon  came  when  the  death  of  Jesus  at  the 
hands  of  the  Jewish  authorities  put  an  end  to  all  doubt 
and  protest  on  the  part  of  his  followers.  It  was  to  them 
a  bewildering  and  disheartening  event.  Up  to  the  last 
they  had  continued  to  hope  that  the  Messianic  kingship  lay 
veiled  under  the  meek  and  quiet  appearance  of  their  Mas- 
ter, and  would,  on  a  sudden,  assert  itself  and  vanquish 
their  enemies.  But  when  the  rulers,  without  hindrance, 
and  almost  without  protest,  put  him  to  death,  their  hearts 
were  struck  with  dismay.  At  first  they  considered  his 
death  to  be  also  the  death  of  all  their  hopes  and  the  failure 
of  the  promised  redemption  of  Israel  (Lk.  xxiv.  19,  20). 
While  they  brooded  over  their  disappointment,  they  learned 
that  he  had  risen  from  the  grave.  To  one  and  another,  and 
even  to  assembled  companies  of  his  disciples,  he  "mani- 
fested himself  after  his  passion  by  many  proofs  "  (Acts 
i.  3).  It  was  the  resurrection  which  rescued  them  from 
despair  and  kindled  hope  again  in  their  hearts.  There 
might  still  be  a  possibility  of  Israel's  redemption,  now  that 
he  had  appeared  as  victor  over  death.  In  some  way  the 
expected  Messianic  deliverance  might  yet  be  accomplished. 
Perhaps  his  death  was,  after  all,  a  part  of  the  divine  plan. 
Luke  records  how,  after  his  resurrection,  Jesus  assured 
them  that  the  Old  Testament  picture  of  Messiah  repre- 
sented him  as  suffering  and  dying  (Lk.  xxiv.  26,  27,  44- 
46),  and  describes  the  attempts  which  the  disciples  made 
to  find  a  place  for  this  idea  of  Messiah's  experience  in  the 
prophetic  descriptions  of  his  work  (Acts  ii.  25-28,  34,  35). 
These  passages  exhibit  the  first  efforts  which  —  so  far  as 
we  know  —  the  disciples  made  to  adjust  their  minds  to  the 


THE   DISCOURSES   IN   THE   ACTS  261 

view  that  the  Messiah's  death  was  necessary  and  divinely 
ordained,  though  we  shall  soon  see  that  the  idea  was  by  no 
means  clear  to  them,  or  free  from  perplexing  difficulties. 
To  adopt  it  as  a  fact,  however,  was  an  important  step.  It 
meant  the  surrender  of  their  earlier  conviction  that  the 
Messiah  should  not,  must  not,  die.  The  way  Avas  now 
open  for  the  recognition  of  Messiah's  sufferings  and  death 
as  an  integral  part  of  his  saving  work.  The  early  apos- 
tolic discourses  enable  us  to  see  this  changed  view  of  Jesus' 
death  in  process  of  formation.  But  before  pursuing  this 
subject  further,  we  must  note  the  effect  of  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus  upon  the  first  disciples'  idea  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God. 

In  his  life  on  earth  Jesus  had  failed  to  establish  his 
J^ng;dom_  as  his  disciples  conceived  it.  His  resurrection 
and  ascension  were  events  which  were  certainly  adapted 
to  suggest  to  them  higher  and  more  spiritual  views  of  his 
work  than  they  had  been  cherishing.  They  knew  him  now 
as  belonging  to  a  higher  world  —  as  exalted  to  the  right 
hand  of  God.  Their  thoughts  turned  to  the  promise  of 
the  Spirit,  of  whose  presence  and  power  he  had  assured 
them.  Here,  certainly,  are  the  elements  of  a  new  and 
higher  view  of  the  Kingdom.  Yet  we  find  that  this  con- 
ception was  but  slowly  realized.  Especially  persistent  in 
the  minds  of  the  early  disciples  was  the  idea  that  his  visi- 
ble presence  was  essential  to  the  consummation  of  his 
work.  Hence  the  expectation  which  had  formerly  been 
directed  to  the  reconstruction  of  the  nation  was  now 
turned  towards  his  return  to  earth.  He  had,  indeed,  as 
they  thought,  left  his  Messianic  work  unfinished,  but  he 
would  soon  return  to  earth  to  complete  it.  Hence  Luke's 
narrative  aptly  pictures  the  company  as  intently  gazing 
after  him  into  the  skies,  and  as  receiving  the  assurance  that 
he  would  visibly  return  to  them  (Acts  i.  10,  11).  The 
gospels  make  it  very  clear  that  the  idea  of  the  Lord's 
speedy  return  to  earth  had  received  among  the  first  disci- 
ples a  great  development,  and  that  his  teaching  about  the 
future  progress  of  his  Kingdom  had  been  chiefly  under- 
stood to  refer  to  that  event.     The  Book  of  Acts  confirms 


262  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

this  view  of  the  matter,  and  enables  us  to  trace  with 
greater  confidence  the  genesis  and  growth  of  the  parousia- 
expectation.  It  was  rooted  in  a  Jewish  view  of  the  King- 
dom, while  its  more  immediate  occasion  was  the  disap- 
pointment produced  by  Jesus'  death,  on  the  one  hand,  and, 
on  the  other,  the  living  hope  which  was  begotten  in  their 
hearts  by  his  resurrection.  The  whole  development  of  the 
disciples'  thoughts  on  the  subject  is  perfectly  natural,  and, 
when  the  facts  are  impartially  viewed,  admits  of  a  most 
reasonable  explanation. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  idea  of  the  Lord's  speedy 
return  to  consummate  his  work  operated  as  a  check  upon 
the  development  of  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom. 
So  long  as  the  thought  of  the  community  was  concen- 
trated upon  the  early  restoration  of  the  Kingdom  to 
Israel,  no  very  large  conception  of  the  mission  and  extent 
of  the  Kingdom  in  the  world  would  be  likely  to  obtain. 
Yet,  in  spite  of  this  limitation,  the  view  of  the  Kingdom 
gradually  enlarged  under  the  logic  of  events  and  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Spirit  until,  at  length,  a  Paul  could  entertain 
the  idea  of  the  gospel  for  the  world  and  strive  heroically 
for  its  realization,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  looked 
for  the  crisis  of  human  history  in  his  own  lifetime.  A  cer- 
tain measure  of  inconsistency  is  inseparable  from  a  process 
of  transition  from  one  standpoint  to  another.  We  are  not 
surprised,  therefore,  to  find  that  the  early  Church  remained 
in  part  entangled  in  its  inherited  Jewish  ideas  and  in  the 
interpretations  of  Christianity  which  v/ere  shaped  by  those 
ideas,  while,  at  the  same  time,  in  other  respects,  it  grasped 
the  characteristic  truths  of  its  new  faith  with  clearness  and 
force.  The  first  disciples  were  at  least  sure  of  the  mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus,  of  his  resurrection  and  glorified  life  in 
heaven,  and  of  the  reality  of  their  relations  with  him. 
These  convictions  were  certain  ultimately  to  carry  with 
themselves  everything  else  which  was  an  essential  part  of 
the  gospel. 

The  picture  which  the  Acts  furnishes  of  the  life  of  the 
primitive  Christian  community  is  an  interesting  and  graphic 
one,  despite  its  fragmentary  character.     We  find  the  dis- 


THE   DISCOURSES    IN   THE   ACTS  263 

ciples  collected  in  Jerusalem.  They  early  choose  a  new 
apostle  to  take  the  place  of  Judas.  At  the  feast  of  Pente- 
cost, a  few  days  after  the  departure  of  Jesus,  occurred  an 
event  whose  main  significance  is  clear,  notwithstanding 
the  peculiar  difficulties  which  attend  the  explanation  of 
the  accompanying  phenomena  described  in  the  narrative 
(ch.  ii.).  It  was  a  signal  realization  of  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  confirmation  of  the  faith  of  the  disciples  and 
the  increase  of  their  number.  It  was  attended  with  ecstatic 
excitement  and  prophetic  utterances,  Avhich  were  under- 
stood, on  the  one  hand,  as  the  wild  ravings  of  drunken 
men,  and,  on  the  other,  as  a  speaking  in  various  lan- 
guages. In  a  powerful  discourse  Peter  declared  that  the 
experience  was  a  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament  predic- 
tions of  the  Messianic  blessing.  The  occasion  formed  an 
epoch  in  the  life  of  the  infant  community,  not  only  on 
account  of  its  powerful  effect  on  the  original  disciples,  but 
because  a  large  number,  from  various  countries,  was  added 
to  their  company. 

This  primitive  community  had  no  formal  organization. 
The  apostles  were,  of  course,  its  natural  leaders,  and  Peter, 
especially,  is  represented  as  the  spokesman  of  the  assembly. 
At  first  the  company  resided  together  in  an  upper  cham- 
ber (Acts  i.  13),  but  this  arrangement  must  soon  have  be- 
come impracticable.  They  frequently  met  together  —  or, 
when  the  community  became  larger,  probably  in  groups  — 
for  prayer,  mutual  encouragement  and  instruction,  and 
"  the  breaking  of  bread  "  (Acts  i.  14 ;  ii.  42,  46),  that  is, 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper  in  the  form  of  a  com- 
mon meal.  A  certain  community  of  property  also  existed 
among  them.  None  counted  what  he  possessed  to  be  his 
own,  but  held  it  subject  to  the  needs  of  his  fellow-Chris- 
tians. Some  expressions  in  Acts,  taken  by  themselves, 
would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  all  the  disciples  contributed 
their  entire  property  to  a  common  fund  (i.  44 ;  iv.  34,  35)  ; 
but  it  is  evident  from  certain  circumstances  which  are  men- 
tioned that  the  arrangement  did  not  involve  the  general 
abolition  of  private  possessions.  Ananias  is  said  to  have 
been  perfectly  free  to  retain  the  full  price  of  his  property 


264  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

without  thereby  giving  oft'ence  to  the  community  (v.  4). 
Mary  the  mother  of  Mark  continued  to  possess  her  own 
house  in  Jerusalem  (xii.  12).  If  a  universal  community 
of  goods  had  prevailed,  it  would  be  strange  that  the  act  of 
Barnabas  in  selling  his  field  and  delivering  up  the  price  to 
tlie  apostles  should  be  singled  out  for  special  mention  (iv. 
36,  37).  Moreover,  had  there  been  a  common  purse  and  a 
corporate,  instead  of  an  individual,  administration  of  all 
property,  it  is  almost  inconceivable  that  we  should  hear 
nothing  of  it  in  the  New  Testament  outside  the  early  chap- 
ters of  Acts.  We  must  conclude  that  no  actual  commu- 
nistic system  was  adopted,  but  that  all  held  their  possessions 
subject  to  the  needs  of  their  brethren.  It  was  a  fraternal 
sharing  together,  born  of  generosity  and  love,  a  moral  and 
not  a  legal  communism.  The  immediate  occasion  of  the 
arrangement  was  the  extreme  poverty  of  most  of  the  Jeru- 
salem Christians,  to  which  Paul's  epistles  also  bear  wit- 
ness. Doubtless  the  expectation  that  the  |>ai'ousia  \  was 
near,  may  have  had  its  influence.  At  any  rate,  this  primi- 
tive method  of  sharing  seems  not  to  have  been  of  long 
duration  —  probably  in  consequence  of  the  increasing  pov- 
erty of  the  Judsean  Christians,  which  made  it  necessary  for 
them  to  look  to  the  Gentile  churches  for  aid.  The  cus- 
tom is  an  interesting  example  of  the  fruit  of  Cliristian 
love  —  as  is  also  the  willingness  with  which  the  Gentile 
churches  afterwards  sent  their  contributions  to  the  mother 
congregation. 

It  was  in  connection  with  this  distribution  of  gifts  to 
the  poor  that  the  first  Church  officers  were  chosen.  Among 
the  primitive  Christians  were  certain  Greek-speaking  Jews. 
They  complained  that  "their  widows  were  neglected  in  the 
daily  ministration  "  (vi.  1).  Whether  this  complaint  was 
just  or  not  we  are  not  told  ;  but  it  is  not  impossible  that  the 
prejudice  which  existed  against  foreign  Jews  may  have 
made  itself  felt  even  within  the  Christian  congregation. 
Up  to  this  time  the  alms  seem  not  to  have  been  officially 
administered.  The  apostles  could  not  well  assume  the  labor 
involved,  and  they  therefore  recommended  the  appointment 
of  seven  almoners  who  should  have  charge  of  the  distri- 


THE   DISCOURSES   IN   THE   ACTS  265 

bution  of  alms.  This  committee  has  generally  been 
regarded  as  the  germ  of  the  later  diaconate.  It  is  quite 
certain  that  the  Church  did  not  yet  possess  a  board  of 
elders.  The  Church  offices  sprang  out  of  practical  neces- 
sities, and  were  not  determined  by  any  preconceived  plan  of 
organization. 

These  circumstances,  which  are  recounted  in  the  early 
chapters  of  Acts,  afford  us  a  very  realistic  picture  of  the 
life  of  the  early  Church.  Everywhere  we  note  the  power 
of  its  intense  and  vital  convictions  and  hopes.  Ardently 
attached  to  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  sincerely  believing  in 
his  presence  and  guidance,  the  first  Christians  contended 
with  extreme  poverty,  braved  the  contempt  and  persecu- 
tion of  their  countrymen,  and  searched  the  Old  Testament, 
the  arsenal  of  Judaism,  for  weapons  of  defence  with  which 
to  meet  their  opponents  in  argument.  The  picture  which 
is  thus  furnished  us  in  these  fragmentary  narratives  bears 
all  the  marks  of  a  sketch  from  life. 

We  now  turn  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus'  messiahship  as 
presented  in  our  sources.  Here,  too,  as  in  the  Gospels, 
it  is  Peter  who  is  the  chief  confessor  and  who  continues 
to  prove  himself  the  rock  of  the  Church.  The  belief 
that  God  had  anointed  Jesus  with  special  power  (iv.  27 ; 
X.  38)  now  gave  rise  to  the  compound  name  Jesus  Christ, 
while  the  term  6  XpLaT6<;  continued  to  be  used,  as  in  the 
Gospels,  as  a  title  and  not  as  a  proper  name  (ii.  38). 
Respecting  his  person  the  principal  declarations  are  as  fol- 
lows:  He  was  divinely  attested  as  the  Messiah ''•  by  his 
miracles,  resurrection,  and  exaltation  (ii.  22-24,  33).  He 
is  the  living  power  which  works  in  his  followers  (iii.  16; 
iv.  10),  and  he  will  come  to  set  right  all  conditions  and 
relations  which  stand  connected  with  the  realization  of  the 
divine  ideal  of  the  Kingdom  (iii.  21).  He  is  the  divine 
Messenger  of  peace,  is  specially  anointed  with  the  Holx 
Ghost,  and  is  ordained  to  be  the  Judge  of  all  (x.  36,  38,  ^2).^ 
In  addition  to  being  named  the  Christ,  he  is  called  iLord/ 
(/cu/3to9,  ii.  36),  God's  holy  Servant  QiraU,  iii.  13 ;  iv>  27, 
30),  —  a  reference  to  the  "Servant  of  Jehovah"  in  Second 
Isaiah,  —  the  holy  and  righteous  One,  the  Prince  (apxn- 


266  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

70?)  of  life  (iii.  14,  15),  a  Prince  and  Saviour  (v. -8^),  and 
the  great  Prophet,  like  unto  Moses,  whom  God  had  prom- 
ised to  raise  up  (Deut.  xviii.  15-19). 

This  is  a  very  simple  Christology.  It  pictures  Jesus 
as  the  holy  Prophet  of  God,  the  Messenger  of  the  divine 
mercy  to  Israel,  the  innocent  sufferer  whose  experiences 
were  divinely  appointed,  and  who  is  now  the  exalted  bearer 
of  salvation.  The  term  "Son  of  man"  occurs  but  once  in 
our  sources  (vii.  56},  and  the  term  "  Son  of  God  "  not  at 
all.^  Nor  is  anything  said  in  these  discourses  of  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christ.  In  fact,  there  is  no  explicit  teach- 
ing here  respecting  his  inner  nature  or  essential  relation 
to  God.  It  is  therefore  easy  to  remark  how  little  is  said 
here,  and  to  conclude,  as  Beyschlag  does,  that  the  primi- 
tive Church  conceived  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  God  as 
that  of  a  purely  human  dependence. ^ 

It  was  certainly  quite  beyond  the  purpose  of  these  dis- 
courses, and  equally  foreign  to  the  thoughts  of  the  first 
disciples,  to  enter  upon  any  speculative  consideration  of 
their  Master's  inner  relation  to  God.  We  must  not  credit 
them  with  a  theory  of  the  mystery  of  his  person.  The 
question  at  this  point  is  not.  Did  the  primitive  apostles 
believe  in  the  preexistence  or  essential  divineness  of  Jesus  ? 
but,  What  view  of  his  person  is  for  us  naturally  involved 
in  the  facts  which  they  believed  and  asserted?  If  Jesus 
is  not  called  Son  of  God  in  our  sources,  he  is  clothed 
with  Messianic  dignity,  and  is  described  as  seated  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  participating  in  the  divine  glory,  and 
sharing  the  government  of  the  world  (v.  31;  x.  36,  42). 
If  his  preexistence  is  not  here  mentioned,  his  lordship 
over  all  things  is  repeatedly  asserted  (ii.  20,  25,  35 ;  iv. 
26;  X.  36,  etc.).  In  view  of  the  Septuagint  use  of  Kvpio^ 
as  a  name  for  Jehovah,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  a  Jewish 
mind  could  attach  to  the  /cu/otoV?;?  which  is  ascribed  to 
Jesus  any  meaning  not  implying  his  superhuman  char- 
acter. ^    To  these  representations  must  be  added  the  strong 

1  viii.  37  is  spurious.  2  jv".  T.  Theol.  I.  309  (Bk.  III.  ch.  ii.  §  2). 

3  In  his  effort  to  break  the  force  of  this  consideration  Beyschlag  (I. 
309,  Bk.  III.  ch.  ii.  §  2)  notices  hut  one  passage  (ii.  34),  neglecting  all  the 


THE   DISCOURSES   IN   THE   ACTS  267 

assertion  of  his  sinless  holiness  (iii.  14;  iv.  27)  and  the 
teaching  that  he  is  the  true  object  of  faith  (iii.  16 ;  x. 
43),  the  giver  of  salvation  (iv.  12;  v.  31;  x.  43),  and 
the  Judge  of  the  world  (x.  42). 

In  the  teaching  which  we  are  reviewing  the  primitive 
apostles  were  dwelling  on  the  historical  facts  of  which 
they  were  cognizant,  and  their  practical  significance.  No 
general  theory  of  Christ's  person  in  explanation  of  these 
facts  could,  as  yet,  have  been  clearly  developed  in  their 
minds.  The  absence  of  any  traces  of  such  a  theory  from 
these  early  chapters  of  Acts  is  one  of  the  marks  of  veri- 
similitude which  they  exhibit.  But  the  descriptions  which 
they  give  of  Christ's  absolutely  unique  character  and  work 
appear  to  me  to  be  quite  irreconcilable  with  the  humani- 
tarian theory  of  his  person.  If  they  did  not  yet  hold  a 
definite  supernatural  view  of  his  person,  it  is  quite  cer- 
tain that  they  did  not  hold  the  humanitarian  view,  and  to 
me  it  seems  almost  equally  certain  that  they  could  never 
have  derived  it  from  the  facts  which  they  allege  or  har- 
monize it  with  them.  We  know  that  as  a  matter  of  fact 
the  apostolic  theology  early  developed  a  definite  doctrine 
of  the  preexistence  and  essential  divinity  of  Christ.  I 
leave  it  to  the  reader  to  judge  whether  this  doctrine  is  a 
legitimate  deduction  from  such  ideas  as  his  sinlessness, 
exaltation  to  lordship  over  all  things,  and  sole  function  as 
Saviour  and  Judge  or  a  groundless  speculation  unwar- 
ranted by  these  conceptions.  I  believe  that  the  true  con- 
clusion is  that  to  which  we  were  led  in  the  study  of  the 
self-testimony  of  Jesus,  namely,  that  the  facts  of  his  teach- 
ing and  life,  as  his  immediate  disciples  knew  them,  war- 
rant the  doctrine  of  his  essential  divinity  which  was  early 
developed  in  the  apostolic  Church.  If  this  doctrine  did 
not  exist  in  the  primitive  Church,  it  was  not  because  the 
elements  of  it  are  not  found  in  the  testimony  of  the  first 
preachers.     The    expressions,  bearing  upon   the   idea   of 

rest.  His  argument  is  :  Jesus  is  made  Lord  by  his  exaltation,  therefore 
must  be  a  temi^oral  being.  But  does  this  conclusion  follow  ?  Compare 
Paul's  doctrine  of  Christ's  exaltation  with  his  emphatic  assertion  of  his 
divine  form  of  existence  and  equality  with  God  (Phil.  ii.  5-9). 


268  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

Christ's  person  which  are  used,  are  not  less,  but  more, 
significant  for  being  incidental.  They  show  that  if  no 
effort  had  yet  been  made  to  define  his  person,  it  was  at 
least  assumed  by  his  followers  to  be  absolutely  unique.  I 
therefore  agree  with  Weiss  when  he  says  :  ''  The  Messiah 
who  is  exalted  to  this  Kvptorr]^  must  certainly  be  a  divine 
Being.  But  we  do  not  thereby  mean  that  there  was  any 
occasion  for  the  earliest  preaching  to  reflect  upon  the  ques- 
tion how  far  such  exaltation  was  grounded  in  the  original 
nature  of  his  person."  ^ 

We  have  seen  that  the  assertion  which  stood  in  the 
forefront  of  the  apostles'  earliest  preaching  was  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  This  they  steadfastly  main- 
tained in  the  face  of  the  nation  which  had  rejected  him. 
But  they  were  now  confronted  with  a  perplexing  ques- 
tion :  How  could  the  death  of  Jesus,  which  was  so  con- 
trary to  their  own  inherited  ideas  of  Messiah's  experience 
and  work,  be  shown  to  be  a  part  of  the  divine  plan? 
Jesus  had  completely  failed  to  realize  the  nation's  expec- 
tation. Could  the  disciples  show  that  he  did,  neverthe- 
less, fulfil  the  true  prophetic  ideal  of  the  Messiah,  and 
that  his  death,  so  far  from  being  inconsistent  with  his 
messiahship,  was  the  culmination  of  his  Messianic  mis- 
sion? 

The  earliest  references  to  the  death  of  Jesus  in  our 
sources  speak  of  it  as  a  great  crime  on  the  part  of  the 
Jewish  people  (ii.  22,  23;  iii.  13-15).  The  Jews  tried 
to  destroy  Jesus,  but  God  thwarted  their  effort  by  raising 
him  from  the  dead  (ii.  24  ;  iii.  15).  By  his  resurrection 
he  was  shown  to  be  the  Messiah  (ii.  25-32).  But  this 
cannot  be  the  whole  truth.  It  is  not  sufficient  simply  to 
maintain  that,  although  his  death  is  an  obstacle  to  belief 
in  his  messiahship,  his  resurrection  overbears  the  force  of 
that  objection.  The  death  itself  must  be  a  part  of  his 
Messianic  work.  In  this  connection  the  apostles  must 
have  recalled  words  of  Jesus  about  the  necessity  of  his 
death  and  the  conformity  of  it  to  the  Scriptural  picture 
of  Messiah's  experience  (Mk.  viii.  31  and  parallels  ;  Lk. 
liV.  T.  TTieoZ.  §40,  c. 


THE   DISCOUKSES   IN   THE   ACTS  269 

xxiv.  26,  27).  Such  words  would  now  shine  in  a  new 
light.  The  apostles  now  began  to  search  the  Scriptures 
in  order  to  see  whether  the  prophetic  view  of  Messiah 
contemplated  his  death.  In  these  efforts  to  show  from 
Scripture  that  Messiah's  death  was  a  part  of  the  divine 
plan,  we  see  the  beginnings  of  the  apostolic  doctrine  of  the 
redemptive  significance  of  his  death.  No  inconsistency 
was  felt  to  exist  between  this  idea  and  the  idea  that  his 
death  was  a  great  crime  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  on  account 
of  which  they  were  to  be  urgently  exhorted  to  repent. 
The  two  conceptions  are  found  side  by  side  (ii.  23  ;  iii. 
13-15,  18).  It  is  true  that  their  guilt  was  somewhat  miti- 
gated by  their  ignorance  of  the  real  nature  of  their  action 
(iii.  17),  but  this  fact  would  furnish  no  means  of  harmo- 
nizing the  two  ideas.  How  the  apostles  adjusted  them 
we  are  not  told,  but  we  may  well  suppose  that  the  action 
of  the  Jews  —  which  was  a  sin  from  the  standpoint  of  its 
motive  —  was  held  to  have  served  the  purposes  of  the 
divine  counsel,  and  thus  regarded  as  subordinate  to  God's 
redemptive  plan.  As  time  goes  on  the  event  is  less  and 
less  contemplated  from  the  former  point  of  view  and  is 
more  exclusively  regarded  as  a  part  of  his  Messianic  work. 
Thus  we  see  that  the  burden  of  the  apostles'  earliest 
preaching  to  their  countrymen  was  this  :  You  killed  the 
Messiah,  but  God  thwarted  your  purpose  to  destroy  him 
by  raising  him  from  the  dead ;  indeed,  your  very  act  ful- 
filled his  counsel.  Yet  you  did  it  from  hatred  and  your 
sin  remains.  Repent  now  while  the  divine  mercy  waits. 
Soon  Christ  will  come  to  judgment.  Become  his  friends 
that  his  coming  may  be  to  you  a  day  of  gladness  and  not 
of  doom  (ii.  13-21;  iv.  10,  11,  27,  28;  v.  30,  31;  x. 
36-43). 

But  here  a  further  question  arises  :  If  the  primitive 
apostles  clearly  recognized  the  death  of  Jesus  as  a  part  of 
the  Messianic  idea,  did  they  have  any  view  of  its  signifi- 
cance as  such  ?  In  other  words,  could  they  believe  that  it 
was  necessary,  as  a  part  of  Messiah's  work,  that  he  should 
die  without  attaching  a  redemptive  meaning  to  his  death  ? 
His  death  as  a  part  of  the  divine  plan  must  have  meant 


270  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

something  to  the  first   disciples.      What    could   it   have  ' 
meant  ? 

When  we  turn  to  our  sources  we  find  no  explicit  teach- 
ing respecting  the  purpose  or  object  of  Messiah's  death  in 
the  divine  economy.  It  is  certainly  not  presented  as  an 
atonement  for  sin  —  a  fact  of  which  Beyschlag  eagerly 
avails  himself  as  a  makeweight  against  that  idea.^  But 
it  is  just  as  certain  that  it  is  not  presented  as  a  moral 
examj^le  —  a  fact  which,  on  Beyschlag's  method  of  argu- 
ment, would  be  available  against  his  view  of  the  meaning 
of  the  event.  The  argumentuin  e  silentio  is  as  precarious 
as  it  is  convenient. 

One  will  search  these  discourses  in  vain  for  any  answer 
to  the  question  :  Wh}^  was  it  necessary  that  Jesus  should 
die  ?  The  historical  relations  only,  and  not  the  inner 
significance  of  the  event,  are  dwelt  upon.  It  is  possible 
to  hold  that  the  apostles  had  not  yet  arrived  at  any  view 
of  that  significance.  But  this  supposition  is  not  without 
serious  difficulties.  We  have  seen  that  the  apostles,  most 
probably,  recalled  the  Avords  of  Christ  respecting  the  neces- 
sity of  his  death.  Would  they  not  be  as  likely  to  recall 
those  which  related  to  its  significance  ?  He  had  spoken 
of  giving  his  life  as  a  ransom  for  many  (Mk.  x.  45),  and 
of  his  blood  of  the  covenant  which  is  shed  for  many 
(xiv.  24).  Is  it  natural  to  suppose  that  the  explanations 
of  the  Scriptures  which  Jesus  gave  to  his  disciples  after 
his  resurrection,  to  the  effect  "that  the  Christ  should 
suffer,  and  rise  again  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  and 
that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached 
in  his  name  unto  all  the  nations,  beginning  from  Jerusa- 
lem" (Lk.  xxiv.  46,  47),  —  however  little  they  may  have 
been  understood  at  the  time,  —  should  not  now  be  recalled 
as  suggesting  that  his  death  and  resurrection  were  a  part 
of  his  saving  work?  There  is  a  further  consideration. 
Paul  says  that  among  the  primary  points  (ev  irpcoTOL^;) 
embodied  in  the  tradition  which  he  received  (from  the 
primitive  apostles)  was  the  fact  "  that  Christ  died  on  be- 
half of  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures"  (1  Cor.  xv.  3). 
1  N.  T.  Theol.  I.  312,  313  (Bk.  III.  ch.  ii.  §  3). 


THE   DISCOURSES   IN   THE   ACTS  271 

Here  the  apostle  distinctly  testifies  to  the  recognition  by 
the  primitive  Christian  community  of  the  saving  signifi- 
cance of  Christ's  death  as  a  cardinal  point  of  doctrine. ^ 

As  the  Messiah  Jesus  is  the  sole  bearer  of  the  Messianic] 
salvation  (iv.  12).  This  salvation  is  conceived  of  as  both 
national  and  personal,  and  as  including  both  spiritual  and 
temporal  good.  The  condition  of  its  appropriation  is  re- 
pentance. It  is  not  too  late  for  the  nation  to  realize  its 
divine  destiny  as  foretold  in  prophecy.  They  may  now 
repent,  accept  the  Messiah,  and  be  saved.  The  promise 
to  them  and  to  their  children  still  holds  good  (ii.  38,  39; 
V.  31).  If  the  Jewish  people  fulfil  this  condition,  they 
will  realize  the  Messianic  blessedness  at  the  return  of  the 
Lord  (iii.  19-21).  But  if  they  reject  this  final  opportunity, 
their  destiny  is  sealed  (iii.  23).  It  is  evident  from  these 
representations  that  the  consummation  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  and  the  realization  of  salvation  are  predominantly 
thought  of  as  future ;  yet  not  to  the  exclusion  of  a  present 
bestowment  of  forgiveness  and  blessedness.  The  gift  of 
the  Spirit  is  already  available ;  forgiveness  of  sin  may  be 
received  at  once;  yet  we  note,  as  in  the  Gospels,  the 
prominence  of  eschatological  expectations  (iii.  19-21). 

It  is  a  mooted  question  whether  the  earliest  discourses 
contemplate  the  extension  of  the  Messianic  salvation 
beyond  the  limits  of  Judaism.     To  me  it  seems  clear  that 

1  Cf.  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  1.  366:  "  Zum  Sichersten,  was  wir 
wissen,  gehort,  dass  nach  1  Ivor.  xv.  3  schon  die  Urgemeinde  den  Tod 
Jesu  in  Beziehung  zur  SUnde  gesetzt  hat."  So  also  Weizsacker,  Apos. 
Age,  I.  130  (Eng.  tr.)  :  "The  primitive  Church  abeady  taught,  and 
proved  from  Scripture,  that  the  death  of  Jesus  exerted  a  saving  influence 
in  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  Beyschlag's  interpretation  (TV.  T.  Theol.  I. 
313),  that  what  Paul  received  (wapeXajSou)  was  simply  the  fact  that  Christ 
died,  to  which  he  added  ex  suis  a  religious  significance,  seems  singularly 
arbitrary.  Its  statement  is  its  sufficient  refutation.  It  involves  the 
supposition  that  when  Paul  wrote  :  o  /cat  irapfka^ov,  on  Xpiarbs  drreOavev 
virkp  tCjv  apLapTidv  ijuQv  Kara  ras  ypa<pds,  his  thought  of  what  he  had 
received  ceased  with  diridavev,  and  with  virep  began  the  statement  of  his 
own  interpretation  of  the  fact.  It  would  have  been  fairer,  and  quite  as 
plausible,  for  Beyschlag  to  have  maintained  that  Paul  claimed  to  have 
received  from  the  first  disciples  an  interpretation  of  Jesus'  death  as  pos- 
sessing redemptive  significance,  but  that  in  this  he  had  mistaken  his  per- 
sonal belief  for  historical  information. 


L 


272  THE   PEIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

this  question  is  to  be  answered  affirmatively.^  Peter 
understands  the  divine  promise  as  relating  not  only  to 
Israel,  but  to  "  all  that  are  afar  off,"  —  outside  the  limits 
of  theocracy,  —  that  is,  to  the  heathen  (ii.  39).  He  sees  in 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  upon  men  "  from  every  nation 
under  heaven "  (ii.  5)  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophet's 
words  that  "  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  saved  "  (ii.  21).  Through  the  Jewish  nation 
all  peoples  of  the  earth  are  to  be  blessed  (iii.  25).  To  the 
Jews,  indeed,  is  salvation  first  (TrpoiTov)  offered  (iii.  26), 
but  this  first  implies  a  second^  so  that  we  have  here  the 
sense  of  Paul's  maxim :  "  To  the  Jew  first  and  also  to  the 
Greek"  (Rom.  i.  16).  These  indications  of  a  universal 
gospel  in  the  earliest  discourses  are  confirmed  by  subse- 
quent events  such  as  the  conversion  of  the  Ethiopian,  of 
Cornelius  and  many  other  Gentiles  (viii.  26  sq. ;  x.  1  sq. ; 
X.  45),  and  by  the  testimony  of  Paul  in  Galatians  to  the 
effect  that  the  "  pillar "  apostles  approved  his  mission  to 
the  Gentiles,  and  that  Peter  himself  recognized  the 
heathen  converts,  and  commonly  associated  with  them 
at  meals  without  scruple  (Gal.  ii.  9,  12 ;  cf.  Acts  xi.  3). 

But  sooner  or  later  the  question  must  arise :  Are  the  forms 
f  the  Jewish  religion  to  be  preserved  under  Christianity? 
Is  Christianity  simply  a  species  of  Judaism,  or  is  it  to  re- 
place the  law?  The  almoner  Stephen  seems  to  have  been 
the  first  definitely  to  face  and  answer  this  question.  He 
declared  that  the  temple-worship  and  the  Mosaic  law 
were  to  be  done  away.  They  were,  indeed,  false  wit- 
nesses who  said  that  he  expressed  himself  blasphemously 
against  the  temple  and  the  law  (vi.  11-14),  but  from  his 
address  it  is  evident  that  he  had  entered  into  the  meaning 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  about  the  fulfilment  of  the  law 
and  the  cessation  of  the  ceremonial  system. 

The  speech  of  Stephen  was  spoken  before  the  Sanhedrin 

1  It  is  a  maxim  with  the  radical  school  that  any  recognition  by  the 
Judeo-Christian  apostles  of  the  idea  of  the  gospel  for  the  world  must  be 
unhistorical.  They  therefore  ascribe  all  statements  of  such  a  recognition 
to  the  dogmatic  bias  of  the  author  of  Acts.  See,  e.g.  Cone,  The  Gospel 
and  its  Earliest  Transformations,  ch.  ii. 


THE   DISCOURSES   IN   THE   ACTS  273 

in  answer  to  the  charge  of  blasphemy.  He  shows,  in  the 
first  place,  by  a  recital  of  the  events  of  Israel's  history, 
how,  in  rejecting  the  Prophet  whom  Moses  foretold,  they 
are  but  repeating  their  earlier  action  in  refusing  the  mes- 
sengers of  God  and  disobeying  the  divine  voice  which 
had  spoken  to  the  nation.  This  is  a  kind  of  counter- 
accusation.  Then  more  directly  answering  the  charge 
against  himself,  he  shows  that  the  idea  of  the  cessation  of 
the  temple-cultus  is  not  blasphemous.  *'  The  Most  High 
dwelleth  not  in  houses  made  with  hands"  (vi.  48).  God 
dwelt  with  his  people  when  they  wandered  in  the  wilder- 
ness ;  he  revealed  his  presence  in  the  tabernacle,  which 
was  carried  from  place  to  place.  His  presence  is  not  con- 
fined to  one  locality,  but  is  spiritual.  The  speaker  had 
grasped  the  thought  of  Jesus,  that  because  God  is  spirit, 
his  worship  should  be  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  and  may  be 
offered  anywhere.  He  insisted  that  in  so  teaching  he  was 
but  reaffirming  the  deepest  lesson  of  their  own  history, 
and  that  in  refusing  Jesus  and  his  spiritual  truth,  they 
were  but  persisting  in  their  preference  for  the  formal  and 
external  in  their  religion,  to  the  neglect  of  its  spiritual 
essence.  We  have  here  a  partial  anticipation  of  Paul's 
doctrine,  that  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,  although  we 
have  no  trace  of  that  form  of  argument  by  which  the 
apostle  deduces  this  conclusion.  To  the  mind  of  Stephen 
it  seemed  to  follow  simply  from  the  nature  of  God's  reve- 
lation and  the  essential  spirituality  of  all  true  worship. 

There  was  no  question  among  the  primitive  apostles 
about  the  right  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  blessings  of  the 
gospel.  But  what  should  be  required  of  them  in  the  way 
of  observance  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  was  a  point  over 
which  there  was  sure  to  be  sharp  difference  of  opinion. 
So  long  as  there  was  no  large  number  of  conversions  from 
heathenism,  the  question  was  not  raised,  although  we  early 
see  it  foreshadowed  in  the  complaint  of  some  of  the  Jeru- 
salem Christians  that  Peter  had  freely  associated  with 
the  uncircumcised  converts  (xi.  2,  3).  When,  however, 
in  consequence  of  persecution,  the  Christians  were  scat- 
tered, and  some  of  them  began  a  flourishing  mission  at 


274  THE  PRIMITIVE  APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

Antioch,  which  soon  resulted  in  the  conversion  of  many 
Gentiles,  certain  Jewish  Christians  came  and  demanded 
the  circumcision  of  these  converts  as  necessary  to  their 
salvation  (xv.  1).  For  our  present  purpose  it  is  sufficient 
to  observe  that  the  primitive  apostles  did  not  sustain  this 
demand.  The  narratives  in  Acts  xv.  and  in  Gal.  ii.  agree 
perfectly  in  asserting  that  the  Jerusalem  convention,  which 
met  to  pronounce  upon  this  question,  refused  to  sanction 
any  such  requirement.  Peter  declared  that  faith  in  Christ 
was  the  sufficient  condition  of  salvation  (xv.  9-11). 
James  repudiated  the  demand  of  the  Judaizers,  and  con- 
selled  laying  no  burden  of  requirement  upon  the  Gentile 
Christians,  except  abstinence  from  certain  practices  into 
which  heathen  converts  might  be  especially  liable  to  fall, 
and  which  were  naturally  and  justly  abhorrent  to  Jewish 
feeling  (xv.  24,  28,  29).  According  to  Paul,  James,  Peter, 
and  John  approved  the  work  of  himself  and  Barnabas, 
gave  them  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  disclaimed  all 
desire  to  modify  or  supplement  their  teaching  and  prac- 
tice, and  stipulated  only  that  they  should  procure  collec- 
tions for  the  poor  Judean  Christians  (Gal.  ii.  6-10).  Thus 
a  great  gain  was  made  for  the  doctrine  of  the  sufficiency 
and  adequacy  of  Christianity,  and  a  long  step  taken 
towards  the  realization  by  the  Church  of  her  freedom  from 
the  Jewish  law. 

This  whole  course  of  events  which  we  have  thus  briefly 
traced  is  of  the  greatest  importance  for  Biblical  Theology. 
It  is  an  outline  history  of  the  emancipation  of  the  infant 
Church  from  the  prejudices  and  practices  of  Judaism. 
The  wonder  is  not  that  the  Church's  progress  was  slow 
and  gradual,  but  that  it  was  so  sure  and  continuous.  It 
was  a  long  way  from  the  perplexity  and  dismay  occasioned 
by  the  death  of  Jesus,  to  the  conviction  that  the  accept- 
ance of  him  and  his  spiritual  truth  was  the  whole  of 
religion.  Men  who  had  been  so  long  used  to  the  old 
wine  of  Judaism  would  not  straightway  desire  the  new 
wine  of  a  free,  spiritual  gospel  (Lk.  v.  39).  The  princi- 
pal steps  in  the  transition  from  the  old  to  the  new  may  be 
recapitulated  thus:    (1)    Jesus  is  the  Messiah  who  has 


THE   DISCOURSES   IN   THE   ACTS  275 

triumphed  over  death  and  now  lives  and  reigns  in  the 
glory  of  the  Father.  (2)  His  death,  maliciously  accom- 
plished by  the  Jews,  must  have  a  place  in  the  divine  plan 
and  be  a  part  of  his  saving  work.  The  Old  Testament 
justifies  this  claim.  (3)  Men  are  to  be  urged  to  repent 
and  to  believe  in  him  for  salvation.  (4)  These  condi- 
tions may  be  fulfilled  irrespective  of  one's  nationality. 
The  Messianic  salvation  is  available  for  all.  (5)  If 
repentance  and  faith  are  the  terms  of  salvation,  then  no 
ritual  requirements,  such  as  circumcision,  can  be  neces- 
sary in  addition  to  them.  (6)  Hence  the  gospel  is  for  all 
men  on  equal  terms,  and  those  terms  are  purely  spiritual. 
To  this  conclusion  the  thoughts  of  the  primitive  apostles 
and  the  course  of  events  described  in  Acts  inevitably 
tended.  But  it  was  reserved  for  the  apostle  Paul  to  be 
the  champion  of  this  principle  and  to  elaborate  the  ethical 
and  historical  grounds  on  which  it  rests. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE   EPISTLE   OF  JAMES 

This  epistle  is  addressed  to  the  Jewish  Christians  of 
the  Dispersion  (i.  1).  It  is  evident  from  the  author's 
hinguage  that  his  readers  were  composed  of  the  poorer 
and  humbler  classes  (ii.  5)  who  were,  most  of  them,  in  the 
employ  of  their  richer  fellow-countrj^iien.  They  were 
subject  to  oppression  and  injustice  at  the  hands  of  their 
non-Christian  employers  (ii.  6  ;  v.  4).  The  writer 
echoes  the  thought  of  Jesus  (Lk.  vi.  20 ;  yii.  22  ; 
xiv.  21),  that  the  poor  are  more  receptive  of  his  truth 
than  the  rich,  although  he  shows  no  enmity  to  the  rich 
as  such.  He  insists  upon  the  perishableness  of  riches 
(i.  10,  11),  but  assumes  that  the  rich  man  may  live  the 
life  of  humility  and  love  (i.  10).  That  life  supplies  the 
true  ground  of  harmony  between  the  two  classes,  elevat- 
ing the  poor  to  a  sense  of  their  spiritual  riches,  despite 
their  hard  outward  conditions,  and  humbling  the  rich  by 
teaching  them  the  vanity  of  worldly  wealth  and  the  sole 
permanency  of  moral  and  spiritual  good  (i.  9-11). 

In  the  situation  which  the  epistle  contemplates  it  was 
not  strange  that  the  Christians  were  tempted  to  court  the 
favor  of  the  rich.  If  a  rich  man  came  into  the  Christian 
assembly,  it  would  be  natural  to  show  him  special  favor ; 
to  treat  him  with  a  fawning  partiality  as  compared  with 
a  poor  man  who  might  enter  (ii.  1-3).  Such  an  attitude 
James  discountenances  on  the  ground  that  it  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  real  equality  of  all  men  before  God  and  with 
the  principle  that  only  spiritual  good  has  real  worth  in 
his  sight.  A  faith  which  is  combined  with  such  partiality 
would  be  sadl}^  adulterated  with  worldliness.  It  would  be 
the  faith  of  a  double-minded  man  (i.  8)  who  is  no  longer 

276 


THE   EPISTLE    OF   JAMES  277 

clear  in  his  consent  to  Christ's  idea  that  riches  do  not 
avail  before  God,  and  who  has  partially  given  himself  over 
to  false  reasonings  respecting  the  honor  due  the  rich  and 
to  servile  behavior  in  their  presence  (ii.  1,  4). 

The  author  breaks  out  in  severe  denunciation  of  the 
Injustice  which  his  readers  were  suffering  at  the  hands  of 
their  employers  (v.  1-6).  He  predicts  their  impending 
doom.  He  sees  their  wealth  consumed  by  rust  and  their 
rich  vestments  by  moths.  The  day  of  the  Messianic  judg- 
ment hastens.  The  wages  of  the  poor  laborers  whom  they 
have  defrauded  cries  out  for  vengeance  upon  them.  They 
have  lived  in  selfish  ease,  like  animals,  fattening  them- 
selves, but  doing  it  for  the  slaughter.  The  righteous  have 
suffered  without  resistance,  but  their  cries  have  been  heard 
by  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  and  the  day  of  vengeance  is  hasten- 
ing on.     "  The  judge  standeth  before  the  doors  "  (v.  9). 

The  evils  which  the  author  rebukes,  or  warns  his  readers 
to  avoid,  and  the  virtues  which  he  commends  are  chiefly 
such  as  are  especially  appropriate  to  the  situation  which 
has  just  been  sketched.  The  readers  were  subject  to  se- 
vere trials  (7rei/3ao-//.ot)  arising  from  their  circumstances. 
These  trials  would  naturally  operate  as  discouragements 
to  faith  and  zeal.  It  would  be  hard  to  maintain  a  belief 
in  the  messiahship  of  Jesus  and  to  preserve  a  certain  sep- 
arateness  from  Judaism  when  to  do  so  involved  the  dis- 
favor and  contempt  of  their  fellow-countrymen.  Hence 
the  burden  of  James's  message  is  an  exhortation  to  patience 
and  steadfastness.  He  urges  that  the  process  of  testing 
to  which  they  are  subject,  if  heroically  endured,  will 
result,  not  in  the  weakening,  but  in  the  strengthening  of 
faith.  The  testing  process  will  but  conflrm  them  in  their 
steadfast  adherence  to  their  faith  and  contribute  to  their 
completeness  in  the  Christian  life  (i.  2-4).  But  if  the 
sufferings  of  their  present  lot  are  to  have  this  effect, 
faith  must  be  preserved  unalloyed.  The  man  who  wavers 
between  the  principles  of  Christ  and  the  favor  of  the 
selfish  world  need  not  expect  any  such  blessing.  He  must 
seek  the  true  wisdom  to  guide  him — the  wisdom  of  Jesus, 
who  placed  the  true  good  in  the  inner  life.     His  faith 


278  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

must  not  be  weakened  by  a  half-hearted  devotion  to  spir- 
itual truth.  He  must  not  doubt  or  be  divided  in  his 
allegiance,  half  consenting  to  the  wisdom  of  Jesus  and 
half  to  the  wisdom  of  the  world.  If  he  does,  he  will  be 
"like  the  surge  of  the  sea  driven  by  the  wind  and  tossed" 
(i.  6).  His  life  will  be  divided  and  will  lose  its  unity, 
its  concentration,  and  its  true  reward  (i.  5-8).  We  seem 
to  hear  in  these  words  an  echo  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
about  the  distraction  of  life  through  anxiety  for  the  things 
of  the  world  and  the  impossibility  of  serving  two  masters 
(Mt.  vi.  24,  25). 

In  addition  to  the  evil  of  sycophancy  towards  their  rich 
employers,  the  readers  would  inevitably  be  tempted  to 
hate  their  oppressors.  Hence  they  are  urged  to  be  "  slow 
to  wrath,"  for  although  God  cherishes  a  righteous  indig- 
nation against  wicked  men,  "  the  wrath  of  man  worketh 
not  the  righteousness  of  God  "  (i.  19,  20).  Man's  methods 
of  taking  vengeance  are  not  the  same  as  God's,  and  God 
does  not  delegate  his  judgment  to  man.  Hence  the  read- 
ers are  exhorted  to  obey  the  "  royal  law  "  of  love  (ii.  8), 
and  to  wait  in  patience  for  the  day  of  divine  judgment,  as 
the  husbandman  waits  on  the  processes  of  nature  (v.  7-9). 

Another  evil  to  which  these  Christians  were  liable  was\ 
an  excessive  eagerness  to  assume  the  role  of  teachers. 
They  had  become  a  relatively  se^^arate  community.  So 
far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  epistle  their  assembly  was 
not  yet  organized.  They  were  not  subject  to  precedent 
or  the  restraining  power  of  an  established  regime  in  the 
conduct  of  their  meetings.  Under  these  conditions  an 
undesirable  liberty  would  easily  develop  itself.  Such 
seems  to  have  been  the  fact.  Many  were  not  "  slow  to 
speak  "  (i.  19),  and  their  speech  often  lacked  the  "  meek- 
ness of  wisdom."  This  excessive  liberty  seems  to  have 
led  to  many  abuses.  It  gave  rise  to  an  exaggerated  em- 
phasis upon  speaking  and  hearing  as  compared  with  prac- 
tice (i.  22).  In  some  cases  it  ministered  to  pride  and 
contention.  The  author  thinks  that  among  his  readers  too 
many  are  aspiring  to  be  teachers,  and  reminds  them  of  the 
solemn  responsibility  which,  teachers  assume  and  of  the 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES  279 

heavier  judgment  to  which  they  are  subject  if  they  fail  in 
their  work.  "  In  many  things  we  all  stumble,"  he  says, 
and  adds  that  there  is  nothing  in  which  one  is  so  liable  to 
stumble  as  in  speech.  How  difficult  and  how  responsible, 
then,  is  the  work  of  a  teacher  (iii.  1,  2) !  This  reflection 
leads  him  off  into  a  general  description  of  the  difficulty 
and  importance  of  controlling  the  tongue. 

Such  considerations  as  the  foregoing  put  us  in  possession 
of  the  general  situation  which  the  epistle  presupposes.  It 
contains  an  extremely  practical  message,  adapted  to  the 
trying  circumstances  of  its  readers.  It  is  simple  and 
straightforward  and  without  any  formal  logical  structure. 
The  two  peculiarities  of  the  epistle  which  strike  one  most 
forcibly  are  the  Old  Testament  form,  of  its  thoughts  and 
the  resemblance  of  many  of  the  ideas  to  those  of  Jesus. 
It  reads  like  a  Jewish  sapiential  book,  but  the  wisdom 
which  is  commended  is  the  wisdom  of  Jesus.  From  these 
general  comments  I  advance  to  a  more  particular  consid- 
eration of  the  doctrinal  contents  of  the  epistle. 

After  the  mf\nner  of  the  Old  Testament,  James's  favorite 
name  ior  God  ^  o  Kvpio'^  (iv.  15  ;  v.  11,  12).  He  is  also 
called  "Lord  of  Sabaoth  "  (v.  4).  Three  times  the  term 
"  Father  "  is  applied  to  God.  He  is  "  our  God  and  Father  " 
(i.  27),  ''the  Lord  and  Father"  (iii.  9),  and  "the  Father 
of  lights"  (i.  17),  that  is,  thg_Creator  of  the  heavenly 
bodies,  and  figuratively  called  their  Father,  because  they 
are  thought  of  as  sources  of  light  and  blessing,  and  as 
kindred  to  him  in  this  respect.  James  pictures  the  good- 
ness of  God  in  various  forms.  He  is  the  bountiful  giver 
of  wisdom  who  does  not,  like  a  reluctant  benefactor,  chide 
those  who  apply  to  him  (i.  5).  He  is  himself  the  abso- 
lutely good,  and  gives  only  good  gifts  to  men.  All  moral 
evil  is  completely  foreign  to  his  nature.  He  cannot  be 
enticed  to  evil,  nor  can  he  entice  men  into  sin.  He  is  the 
pure  and  perpetual  fountain  of  goodness.  There  is  with 
him  "  no  variation,  neither  shadow  cast  by  turning."  Un- 
like the  sun  and  moon,  his  light  suffers  no  eclipse.  He 
bestows  the  spiritual  life  by  solving  the  word  of  truth  in 
the  heart  (i.  13-18). 


280  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

The  Old  Testament  ideas  of  the  "jealousy"  of  God  and 
of  the  divine  judgment  are  prominent  in  our  epistle.  To 
become  a  "friend  of  the  world"  —  that  is,  to  give  oneself 
up  to  sinful  pleasures  and  passions  —  is  to  become,  so  far, 
hostile  to  God ;  and  God  wants  no  divided  or  partial  alle- 
giance. The  spirit  which  he  implants  in  men  yearns  over 
them  enviously,  that  is,  God  is  anthropopathically  repre- 
sented as  begrudging  the  partial  transfer  of  men's  devotion 
to  another  than  himself.  Hence  such  faithlessness  is  repre- 
sented, as  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  adultery.  God  requires 
an  undivided  heart  (iv.  1-5).  He  will  severely  judge  op- 
pression and  injustice,  yet  towards  the  humble  and  patient 
"  the  l^ord  is  full  of  pity  and  merciful "  (v.  11).  To  me  it 
seems  evident  that  we  have  here  a  clear  reflection  of  Jesus' 
idea  of  God  as  the  bountiful  and  ungrudging  giver  of  all 
good,  the  heavenly  Father  who  is  perfect  (reXeto?)  in  love 
(Mt.  V.  43-48),  the  eh  aya06<;  whose  goodness  is  absolute 
and  therefore  excludes  all  becoming  good  (Mk.  x.  18). 
Here  we  see  the  God  of  the  Old  Covenant  clothed  in  the 
qualities  which  distinguish  Jesus'  conception  of  the  Father 
An  heaven. 
/  As  in  the  Old  Testament,  man  is  described  as  made  in 
'Vthe  image  of  God  (iii.  9).  It  is  obvious  from  the  context 
that  all  men,  despite  their  sinfulness,  are  regarded  as  still 
bearing  the  divine  likeness.  The  argument  is:  Do  not 
curse  your  enemies ;  reverence  man  as  man,  because  he  is 
made  in  the  image  of  God.  This  idea  is  the  key  to  all 
that  our  author  says  concerning  mankind.  As  in  Genesis, 
man,  whom  God  has  made  for  himself,  is  subjected  to  temp- 
tation to  forfeit  his  true  relation  to  his  Maker.  The  world 
makes  its  appeal  to  his  heart,  and  claims  at  least  a  part  of 
his  interest  and  devotion.  The  term  "  world  "  is  not  de- 
fined, but  its  use  makes  it  evident  that  it  bears  an  ethical 
sense.  The  readers  are  bidden  to  "  keep  themselves  un- 
spotted from  the  world  "  (i.  27).  The  tongue  is  identified 
with  the  "  world  of  iniquity  "  in  the  body  (iii.  6),  the  idea 
apparently  being  that  the  tongue  is  the  organ  of  the  world 
of  evil  in  man.  "  The  friendship  of  the  world  is  enmity 
with  God"  (iv.  4).     The  world  is  moral  evil,  without  or 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES  281 

within.  It  may  be  our  environment,  so  far  as  that  sup- 
plies occasion  and  furnishes  stimulus  to  evil  appetites  and 
passions.  It  may  be  —  and  in  the  last  analysis  must  be  — 
the  subject-matter  of  our  own  thoughts.  Now  this  evil 
world  enters,  as  it  were,  into  competition  with  God  for  the 
possession  of  the  soul  of  man.  The  division  of  the  life 
between  the  world  and  God  results  in  that  instability  and 
distraction  which  the  author  likens  to  the  restless  motion 
of  the  sea  (i.  6).  It  is  this  division  which  makes  the 
"  doubting  "  (hiaKpivoiievo^^  man  —  the  "  two-minded  " 
(Sn/ru;^o9)  man,  who  is  "unstable  in  all  his  ways"  (i.  6-8). 
As  I  have  already  intimated,  we  have  here  a  probable  echo 
of  Jesus'  teaching  upon  the  single  purpose  and  supreme 
choice  of  life  (Mt.  vi.  19  sg.). 

To  be  "  unspotted  from  the  world  "  is  certainly  akin 
to  the  life  of  merciful  ministration  which  is  cited  as  illus- 
trating the  nature  of  "  pure  and  undefiled  religion  "  (i.  27). 
The  opposite  of  this  piety  (6pr]aKeLa)  is  seen  from  the 
context  to  be  a  self-assertive  ambition,  a  greed  for  promi- 
nence which  leads  to  an  extravagant  freedom  of  speech  — 
a  reckless  use  of  the  tongue  either  in  wrathful  denuncia- 
tion or  in  self-assumed  authority  and  importance.  The 
passage  i.  19-27  would  yield  us  this  idea  as  illustrating 
what  James  means  by  that  worldliness  which  imperils 
faith  and  breaks  up  the  unity  and  concentration  of  the 
religious  life.  The  passage  on  the  wrong  use  of  tlie 
tongue  (iii.  1-12)  yields  a  similar  idea.  When  the  tongue 
is  made  the  organ  of  wrathful  or  impure  passion,  the  whole 
evil  world  in  the  heart  of  man  is  roused  to  utter  itself  by 
it.  To  allow  such  free  expression  to  evil  thoughts  is  to 
make  friends  with  the  "  world  of  iniquity "  and  to  put 
oneself  under  its  overmastering  power.  To  do  this  is 
the  dictate  of  a  base  and  not  of  a  true  wisdom  (iii.  13-18). 
Such  a  life  of  unrestrained  passion  will  be  likely  to  give 
rise  to  every  kind  of  evil  deeds,  and  thus  to  lead  on  to  the 
full  result  of  that  "friendship  of  the  world"  which  is 
"  enmity  with  God "  —  a  faithlessness  to  his  love  from 
w^hich  he  yearns  to  win  back  those  whose  supreme  devo- 
tion he  craves  (iv.  4,  5). 


282  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

/  These  considerations  disclose  to  us  the  author's  concep- 
tion of  sin.  God  and  the  world  compete  for  the  affections 
of  man.  Faith  —  devotion  to  God  and  to  the  world  of 
spiritual  and  eternal  reality  —  is  the  root  of  goodness. 
Surrender  to  the  enticements  of  evil  is  sin.  The  nearest 
approach  to  a  philosophy  of  sin  is  found  in  the  passage  : 
"  Each  man  is  tempted,  when  he  is  drawn  away  by  his 
own  lust,  and  enticed.  Then  the  lust,  when  it  hath  con- 
ceived, beareth  sin :  and  the  sin,  when  it  is  fullgrown, 
bringeth  forth  death"  (i.  14, 15).  Evil  desire  (^iiriOvixia) 
is  the  principle  of  sin.  Forsaking  devotion  to  God  man 
transfers  his  allegiance  to  the  courtesan  eTnOvfjLLa^  and  of 
this  union  sin  is  born.  ''  Thus  sin  is  an  unlawful  child  of 
the  desire  and  the  will"  (Beyschlag).  When  it  is  full- 
grown  sin  produces  death,  the  moral  death  of  the  soul. 
In  this  description  the  author  seems  to  have  in  mind  the 
warning  of  Gen.  ii.  17  :  "  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest 
thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die  ; "  but  he  attaches  to  death 
an  ethical  rather  than  a  physical  meaning  (r/.  v.  20). ^ 
It  does  not  follow  from  the  figure  which  is  here  used 
that  James  places  sin  in  sensuous  passion  alone.  He 
speaks  of  perverted  desire  in  general  including  all  the 
ends  and  aims  which  are  inconsistent  with  supreme  love 
to  God.  Hence  it  follows  that  he  really  places  sin  in  a 
perversion  of  the  will  and  the  affections.  Formally  con- 
sidered, sin  is  a  false  choice. 

What  now  is  the  material  principle  of  sin  ?  What  is 
the  object  of  this  false  choice  ?  Although  James  gives  us 
no  explicit  answer  to  this  question,  we  need  not  go  wrong 
in  inferring  the  answer  which  is  implied  in  his  language. 
Here,  as  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  sin  is  selfish- 

1  The  context  of  these  passages,  especially  that  of  v.  20,  seems  to  show 
that  ddvaros  has  for  James  primarily  an  ethical  meaning.  Still  it  is  not 
to  be  forgotten  that,  according  to  the  Biblical  idea,  death  is  the  opposite 
of  life  in  the  largest  sense  of  that  term,  and  that  the  elements  which  con- 
stitute fulness  of  life  are  not  so  sharply  distinguished  in  Scripture  as  in 
modern  thought.  The  term  "  death"  may  be  used,  now  in  a  narrower,  now 
in  a  wider,  sense,  and  may  emphasize  now  one,  now  another,  phase  of  the 
forfeiture  of  life.  See  Ernesti,  Ursprung  der  Sunde,  u.  s.  w.  p.  180  ; 
Schmidt,  Lehrgehalt  des  Jacobns-Briefes,  pp.  86,  87. 


^  k.  THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES  283 

ness.  By  James,  as  b}^  Paul,  the  natural  bodily  appetites 
and  passions  are  emphasized  as  the  seat  and  occasion  of 
sin.  Sinful  actions  spring  from  the  "  pleasures  which 
strive  for  conquest  in  the  members"  (iv.  1).  Sensuous 
passion  is  a  powerful  incentive  to  sin,  but  sin  is  not  iden- 
tical with  sensuousness.  The  physical  impulses  become 
sinful  only  when  they  are  perverted  by  the  consent  of  the 
will.  Moreover,  James  has  much  more  to  say  of  spiritual 
than  of  physical  sins.  The  only  sins  on  which  he  dwells 
at  length  are  servile  obsequiousness  towards  the  rich  — 
having  its  root  in  selfish  worldliness — and  the  unbridled 
"^use  of  the  tongue.  Both  these  forms  of  evil  are  more  due 
to  pride,  the  subtlest  form  of  selfishness,  than  to  sensuous- 
ness. The  author  particularly  specifies  hatred,  wrath, 
envy,  and  rivalry  (^eptdda)  (i.  19,  20;  iv.  9,  14,  16). 
Even  failure  to  do  one's  duty  is  sin,  since  it  springs  from 
selfish  indifference.  Examples  of  such  "  sins  of  omission  " 
would  be  an  idle  hearing  of  the  word  without  correspond- 
ing action  (i.  22-24),  a  cold  and  half-hearted  recognition 
of  God  and  spiritual  good  without  deeds  of  benevolent 
service  (ii.  14-26),  and,  in  general,  the  failure  to  try  to 
fulfil  in  action  one's  own  knowledge  of  what  he  ought  to 
do  :  '*  To  him  that  knoweth  to  do  good,  and  doeth  it  not, 
to  him  it  is  sin  "  (iv.  17). 

All  these  types  of  sin  are  forms  of  selfish  desire.  In 
sensuous  sin  man  seeks  the  gratification  of  his  lower 
nature  ;  in  pride,  envy,  and  wrath  he  yields  to  the  im- 
pulses of  selfish  ambition  and  of  a  false  self-assertion  ;  in 
indifference  to  the  needs  of  others  he  falls  into  a  selfish 
love  of  ease,  in  which  his  own  personal  enjoyment  is 
treated  as  the  only  good.  There  is  thus  a  real  philoso- 
phy underlying  our  author's  treatment  of  sin.  It  is  based 
upon  an  inner  law  or  principle,  that  of  selfish  prudence, 
and  is  called  abase  and  earthly  "wisdom"  (iii.  15).  It 
stands  over  against  the  true  wisdom  of  a  good  life  which 
seeks  after  chastity,  instead  of  sensual  indulgence  ;  after 
peace,  instead  of  envy,  rivalry,  and  hatred ;  after  the 
rewards  of  forbearance,  gentleness,  and  compassion,  in- 
stead of  the  fruits  of  anger,  hate,  and  covetousness  (iii. 


284  THE  PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

17).  This  false  wisdom  is  earthly  (iirLr^eio^),  as  opposed 
to  heavenly  or  divine  —  it  partakes  the  nature  of  this 
lower,  passing,  evil  world  ;  it  is  psychical  (^^^^(^Lfcrj)  or 
natural,  that  is,  it  consists  in  giving  chief  place  to  man's 
lower  nature  Q^vxv}^  especially  his  animal  appetites  and 
passions,  instead  of  laying  chief  stress  upon  the  higher 
nature  Qirvevixa)  in  which  man  is  most  nearly  kindred  to 
God,  and  it  is  "  demoniacal "  (^Sai/JLovLcoSr)^^^  as  partaking 
the  nature  of  the  "  unclean  spirits,"  who  in  the  Gospels 
are  represented  as  possessing  the  souls  of  men  and  driving 
them  to  madness  (iii.  15).  This  spurious  wisdom  of  the 
selfish  life  gives  rise  to  egotism,  boasting,  cursing,  and 
every  blind  and  stormy  passion'.  It  destroys  the  social 
life  of  man.  It  is  the  fruitful  mother  of  confusion  (cucara- 
araaio)  and  of  every  evil  deed  (iii.  16). 
■/ Nothing  is  said  of  the  origin  of  sin,  or  of  its  conse- 
quences, beyond  the  mention  of  death  —  the  moral  deteri- 
oration or  loss  of  the  soul  —  as  its  result  (i.  15;  v.  20). 
In  one  place  only  is  Satan  spoken  of  (iv.  7):  "Resist  the 
devil,  and  he  will  flee  from  you."  Here  Satan  is  quite 
certainly  thought  of  as  inciting  men  to  hatred  and  discord, 
and  his  flight  from  him  who  victoriously  resists  his  solici- 
tations is,  not  improbably,  conceived  of  according  to  the 
picture  of  Jesus'  conflict  with  the  devil  in  the  wilderness. 
Our  author  was  familiar  with  the  conception  of  "  demo- 
niacal possession  "  which  meets  us  in  the  Synoptics.  The 
statement  that  the  "demons  believe,  and  shudder"  (ii. 
19)  in  the  presence  of  God,  is  probably  a  reminiscence  of 
the  belief  and  terror  of  the  demoniacs  in  the  presence  of 
Christ,  which  the  Gospels  describe  (Lk.  iv.  41 ;  Mt.  viii. 
29). 

As  the  absolutely  good,  God  demands  goodness  in  man. 
He  reveals  his  own  purity  and  its  requirements  in  his  law. 
This  law  is  for  James  the  Mosaic  law,  as  is  shown  by  the 
examples  of  it  which  he  gives  from  the  Decalogue  (ii.  11). 
But  it  is  not  conceived  after  the  manner  of  Rabbinism, 
but  as  a  spiritual  unity.  Its  essence  is  love,  wdiich  is  the 
"  royal  law  "  (ii.  8).  In  that  principle  its  specific  require- 
ments are  so  comprehended  that  a  violation  of  any  one 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES  285 

commandment  is,  at  the  same  time,  an  infraction  of  the 
one  indissoluble  law  (ii.  10).  James  thus  unifies  and 
spiritualizes  the  legal  system.  It  has  become  for  him  a 
"  perfect  law "  (v6/jlo^  reXeio?,  i.  25),  a  law  fulfilled  and 
perfected  by  Jesus.  It  is  a  "  law  of  liberty  "  (z^o'/xo?  r^? 
iXevdepia^^  i.  25  ;  ii.  12),  that  is,  a  law  whicli  is  not  merely 
felt  as  a  constraining  force  from  without,  but  as  an  inspi- 
ration within.  It  is  a  law  which  the  heart  freely  obeys. 
It  cannot  be  fulfilled  by  mere  outward  compliance,  as 
many  human  laws  can  be,  but  the  duties  which  it  enjoins 
must  be  freely  chosen.  Its  essence  is  in  the  spirit  or 
principle  which  underlies  it.  That  principle  is  love. 
Hence  men  will  be  "judged  by  the  law  of  liberty"  (ii. 
12)  Avhich  regards  the  motive  as  well  as  the  deed.  The 
rule  of  life  is  not  merely  an  outer  word  ;  it  is  an  inner 
word  engrafted  in  the  heart  (Xoyo^i  efjicfivro^,  i.  21)  and 
bringing  forth  fruit  in  the  life. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the_doctrine  of  righte£awneSs"setj 
forth  in  Old  Testament  termsTl^ut  ihTiihinistakable  agree- ' 
ment  with  the  ethical  and  spiritual  teaching  of  Jesus  in- 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  Old  Testament  law  is 
still  thought  of  as  binding  upon  the  Christian,  but  the 
author  has  penetrated  to  its  essence  and  spirit  and  makes 
the  true  obedience  to  consist  in  the  motives  which  rule  the 
inner  life.  What  is  this  but  the  righteousness  which  Jesus 
demanded  ?  The  way  in  which  this  righteousness  is  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  Old  Testament  system  as  such  is 
not  yet  discerned.  Christianity  is  still  in  the  green  ear. 
But  the  principle  —  namely,  that  of  the  free  inner  life  — 
has  been  apprehended,  and  that  principle  will  at  length 
set  the  gospel  free  from  Judaism.  In  our  epistle  also, 
God  appears,  quite  in  Jewish  fashion,  as  the  strict  law- 
giver and  judge  (iv.  12)  ;  yet  it  is  evident  that  he  is  not 
conceived  of  as  rewarding  men  in  strict  equivalence  for 
their  sins,  since  he  is  "full  of  pity  and  merciful "  (v.  11). 
Where  men  fulfil  the  moral  conditions  on  which  God  can 
bless  and  save  them,  "  mercy  boasts  itself  superior  to  judg- 
ment "  (ii.  13),  that  is,  triumphs  over  all  fear  of  judgment. 
Although  God  is  not  a  mere  merciless  accountant  in  his 


286  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

dealings  with  men,  he  does  require  the  fulfihnent  of  ap- 
propriate conditions  in  order  that  men  may  be  recipients 
of  his  mercy.  "  Judgment  is  without  mercy  to  him  that 
hath  showed  no  mercy"  (ii.  13).  This  is  the  principle 
of  Jesus  :  '"  The  merciful  shall  obtain  mercy  "  (Mt.  v.  7  ; 
cf.  Mt.  vi.  14  and  vii.  1).  God  is  benevolent  and  gener- 
ous (i.  5  ;  V.  11).  No  adjustment  of  the  judicial  and  the 
benevolent  aspects  of  the  divine  character  is  attempted. 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  problem  of  making 
such  an  adjustment  was  present  to  the  mind  of  the  author. 

These  considerations  open  the  way  to  a  right  under- 
standing of  our  author's  view  of  salvation.  The  provision] 
for  salvation  is  grounded  in  the  gracious  will  of  God  y 
"  Of  his  own  will  (ySouXT^^et?)  he  brought  us  forth  by  the 
word  of  truth"  (i.  18).  God  chose  them  that  are  "poor 
as  to  this  world  to  be  rich  in  faith"  (ii.  5).  This  choice 
is  not  conceived  of  as  an  eternal  decree,  but  as  a  historical 
action.  His  gracious  action  is  in  accord  with  his  good- 
ness as  the  giver  of  all  good  gifts  (i.  17),  and  his  choice 
of  the  poor  is  presented  in  contrast  to  the  servility  to  the 
rich  which  he  is  reproving.  The  whole  epistle  shows 
that  it  was  chiefly  the  poor  in  the  communities  in  question 
who  were  susceptible  to  the  gospel-call.  The  rich  were 
proud,  hard,  and  self-sufficient. 

James  teaches  the  doctrine  of  spiritual  renewal.  God 
brings  men  forth  into  a  new  life  by  means  of  "  the  word 
of  truth"  (i.  18),  which  is  elsewhere  described  as  the 
word  that  is  implanted  (e/xc^uTo?)  in  the  heart  (i.  21). 
This  is  the  truth  of  the  Kingdom  which  Jesus  described 
as  sown  upon  the  different  soils,  and  as  growing  or  perish- 
ing according  to  the  reception  with  which  it  met.  The 
figure  of  i.  18  (^Pov\7)0eh  aireicvriaev)  reminds  us  of  the 
phrase,  "begotten  of  God"  (Jn.  i.  13),  and  of  Jesus' 
words  to.-Niaodemus  respecting  the  new  birth  (Jn.  iii.  3-5). 
The  salvation  thus  bestowed  is  a  present  fc^ct.  The  read- 
ers are  described  as  a  "kind  of  first  fruits  of  God's  creat- 
ures" (i.  18),  that  is,  as  an  especial  possession  of  God. 
The  new  life  is  to  be  lived  and  enjoyed  here  and  now  in 
faith  and  action  (i.  22  sq,-,  ii.  14  sq.^.      Still,  the  future 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES  287 

aspect  of  salvation  is  also  strongly  emphasized.  The  con- 
trast between  this  world  of  suffering  and  the  coming 
Kingdom  of  blessedness  is  strongly  marked.  The  great 
comfort  which  is  offered  the  readers  is  that  they  are 
"  heirs  of  the  kingdom  which  God  promised  to  those  that 
love  him"  (ii.  5),  and  that  after  they  have  faithfully 
endured  the  trials  to  which  they  are  subject  in  this 
world,  they  shall  ''receive  the  crown  of  life,  which  the 
Lord  promised  to  them  that  love  him"  (i.  12).  It  is  evi- 
dent that  this  consummation  is  associated  in  the  mind  of 
James  with  the  Lord's  second  coming,  for  which  the  read- 
erg  are  exhorted  patiently  to  wait  (v.  7),  and  which  is 
declared  to  be  near  (v.  8).  With  the  apostolic  Church  in 
general  our  author  believes  that  he  is  living  ''  in  the  last 
days"  (v.  3).  ''The  judge  standeth  before  the  doors" 
(V.  9). 

Not  much  is  explicitly  said  respecting  the  person  of 
Christ  in  our  epistle,  yet  much  is  implied.  Not  only  is 
the  title  Lord  («;u/3to9,  6  Kvpio^)  applied  to  him  (i.  1;  ii.  1), 
but  the  author  designates  himself  as  "  a  servant  (SoOXo?) 
of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (i.  1)  in  such  a 
way  as  to  imply  that  his  relation  to  Christ  is  like  his  rela- 
tion to  God.  Moreover,  Jesus  the  Messiah  is  the  true 
object  of  faith  (ii.  1)  and  "the  Lord  of  glory."  Whether 
the  defining  rr)?  Sdf?;?  means  that  he  personally  shares  the 
divine  glory,  or  is  now  exalted  to  a  heavenly  sphere,  or 
will  reappear  in  glory  at  his  parousia,  it  certainly  attrib- 
utes to  Jesus  a  superhuman  character.  His  is  "  the  hon- 
orable name  "  (to  koKov  ovo/jLa,  ii.  7)  which  was  named  over 
the  readers  in  baptism.  He  is  the  Mediator  of  salvation. 
The  "word  of  truth,"  "the  implanted  word"  (i.  18,  21), 
which  the  Christian  readers  have  received,  has  come  to 
them  through  Christ,  who  by  his  life  and  teaching  has 
transformed  the  outer  law  into  an  inner  law,  and  made  it 
a  law  which  rules  in  the  heart  and  is  obeyed  in  freedom 
and  with  delight.  If  God  is  called  judge  (iv.  12),  so 
also  is  Christ  (v.  9),  from  which  we  must  deduce  the 
idea  that  God  is  to  judge  the  world  through  Christ  by 
the  law  of  liberty  (ii.  12),  because  what  one  freely  chooses 


288  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

and  does  is  the  measure  of  what  he  is.  It  is  a  sufficient 
explanation  of  the  meagreness  of  this  Christology  to  say 
that  neither  the  circumstances  of  his  readers  nor  the  pur- 
pose of  the  writer  called  for  any  developed  doctrine  of 
Christ's  person.  Probably  the  author  possessed  no  elabo- 
rate doctrine.  But  this  much  he  possessed  :  Jesus  is  the 
exalted  Messiah,  the  author  of  salvation,  and  the  judge  of 
tlie  world.  These  ideas  are  not  dwelt  upon  at  length, 
but  they  underlie  the  whole  purpose  of  the  epistle,  and 
give  point  and  force  to  all  its  arguments  and  exhorta- 
tions. Can  it  fairly  be  said  in  view  of  these  elements  of 
doctrine  that  for  James  "  Christ  had  not  yet  become  the 
central  point  of  doctrinal  thought "  ?  ^ 

But  it  is  the  passage  on  justification  (ii.  14-26)  which 
has  occasioned  the  liveliest  interest  and  the  widest  differ- 
ences of  opinion  which  are  to  be  observed  in  the  treatment 
of  our  epistle.  We  can  best  represent  its  general  drift 
in  a  free  paraphrase.  The  argument  runs  thus  :  We 
have  seen  that  the  mere  hearing  of  the  truth  is  valueless 
without  obedience  to  it  (i.  22  sg.)  What  God  requires 
is  a  life  of  unselfish  love  and  helpfulness.  Now  it  is 
equally  profitless  for  a  man  to  possess  a  faith  which  does 
not  manifest  itself  in  works  of  mercy  and  love.  Such  a 
faith  can  have  no  saving  value  (14).  Suppose  a  Christian 
should  declare  that  he  possessed  the  sentiments  of  benevo- 
lence and  pity,  and  yet  when  he  met  with  a  fellow- 
Christian  naked  and  hungry,  should  merely  express  the 
wish  that  his  need  might  be  supplied,  and  do  nothing  at 
all  for  the  relief  of  the  person.  What  a  valueless  philan- 
thropy that  would  be  (15,  16)  !  Equally  valueless  is  a 
faith  which  does  not  express  itself  in  deeds  and  services. 
Such  a  faith  is  "  dead  in  itself "  (yeicpa  KaO'  eavrrjv}  ;  it 
has  within  it  no  principle  of  life  or  movement  (17).  Let 
us  put  the  matter  very  clearly.  Suppose  that  one  who 
is  not  a  party  to  any  dispute  about  "  faith  and  works  " 
should  meet  the  question  under  consideration.  Suppose 
him  to  encounter  a  man  such  as  I  have  described  {v.  14) 
who  professes  "faith"  alone,  and  suppose  this  outsider, 
1  Beyschlag,  K  T.  Theol.  I.  354  (Bk.  III.  ii.  ch.  iii.  §  3). 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES  289 

in  turn,  to  take  up  the  claim  to  possess  "works."  How, 
now,  will  lie  be  likely  to  view  the  relation  of  the  two 
principles  ?  Will  he  not  say  :  You  claim  to  have  faith ; 
give  me  a  proof  that  you  possess  it  apart  from  ivorks^  if 
you  can.  I,  on  the  other  hand,  will  prove  b^/  my  works 
that  I  possess  faith  also  (18).  The  result  will  be  that  a 
faith  which  does  not  utter  itself  in  deeds  will  be  found 
unable  even  to  prove  its  own  existence.  Christian  acts 
and  services  are  the  necessary  expression  of  a  true  and 
vital  faith.  The  imaginary  party  whom  we  introduced 
might  pursue  his  argument  further,  thus  :  You  who  pro- 
fess to  have  faith  would  probably  quote  as  an  example  of 
it  your  belief  that  God  is  one.  It  is  a  correct  opinion  ; 
but  I  would  remind  you  that  the  demons  also  hold  the 
same  opinion  and  are  not  the  better  for  it  (19). 

What  folly,  then  (James  continues),  to  claim  that  any 
so-called  faith  which  does  not  lead  to  action  and  express 
itself  in  deeds  of  mercy  and  love,  is  useful  or  saving. 
True  faith  leads  to  Avorks  (20).  Take  the  typical  Old 
Testament  example  of  faith,  that  of  Abraham.  He  is 
described,  not  merely  as  believing,  but  also  as  doing  a 
great  act  of  self-sacrifice,  Avhich  was  the  fruit  of  his  faith. 
For  this  act  he  was  as  really  approved  of  God  as  for  his 
faith,  out  of  which  the  action  sprang.  God  requires,  not 
only  a  right  disposition  of  mind  and  heart  towards  himself, 
but  also  the  appropriate  conduct  to  which  such  a  disposition 
should  lead.  This  conduct  is,  indeed,  proof  of  the  right 
disposition  and  is  inseparable  from  it.  Where  the  con- 
duct is  wanting,  it  will  be  found  that  the  inner  disposition 
fails  to  fill  out  the  true  idea  of  religious  faith  (21-24). 
The  example  of  Rahab  also  shows  that  the  faith  which 
God  approves  is  an  active  principle  (25).  Thus  we  reach 
the  conclusion  that  a  faith  which  does  not  lead  to  a  good 
life  is  "the  mere  corpse  of  religion"  (Mayor)  (26). 

It  is  evident  that  V  works)"  are  here  conceived,  not  as 
meritorious  deeds  of  legaToBedience  (ep^a  vo^iov)^  but  as 
acts  of  Christian  .mercy  and  love.  Nor  are  they  set  over 
against  faith  as  a  conceivable  rival  condition  of  God's 
approval.     On  the  contrary,  they  are  regarded  as  the  evi- 


290  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

dence  and  fruit  of  true  faith  —  its  natural  and  necessary 
expression.  Faith  and  works  do  not,  therefore,  represent 
two  independent  principles.  They  are  related  to  each 
other  as  the  tree  is  to  its  fruit.  The  spurious  or  "  dead  " 
faith  Avhich  James  describes  may  be  likened  to  a  barren 
tree.  Only  in  "  works  "  does  faith  fulfil  its  true  nature. 
Where  they  a^e  wanting,  faith  must  be  so  rudimentary 
that  it  no  longer  answers  to  its  true  idea.  "  By  w^orks  is 
faith  made  perfect"  (ii.  22);  faith  is  never  its  true  and 
complete  self  except  when  it  is  a  principle  of  life  and  action 
leading  to  the  deeds  and  services  which  are  its  natural 
fruitage. 

What,  then,  was  James's  conception  of  faith  ?  Some 
scholars  have  urged  the  necessity  of  seeking  a  definition  of 
the  subject  which  is  large  enough  to  accommodate  all  the 
allusions  to  faith  which  are  made  in  the  epistle.  As  a  re- 
sult of  such  an  effort  Beyschlag  says  that  the  notion  of  faith 
in  James  is  the  same  as  that  found  in  Heb.  xi.  1 :  "  The  con- 
viction of  the  reality  of  supersensuous  facts  and  blessings."  ^ 
This  view  seems  to  attribute  to  James  a  more  abstract  mode 
of  thought  than  his  epistle  illustrates,  and  to  overlook  the 
fact  that  faith  is  a  large  idea  and  has  many  sides  and 
phases.  When,  for  example,  James  is  opposing  faith  to 
doubting  or  wavering  (i.  6),  he  seems  to  be  thinking  of 
faith  as  a  firm  conviction  of  the  superior  value  of  spiritual 
good.  When  he  exhorts  his  readers  not  to  join  with  their 
faith  in  Christ  partiality  to  the  rich  (ii.  1),  he  appears  to 
be  thinking  of  the  warnings  which  Jesus  gave  respecting  the 
dangers  of  a  love  of  riches,  and  to  mean  that  Christian 
faith  involves  fidelity  to  the  principles  which  Jesus  had 
enunciated  on  that  subject.  In  the  section  on  justifica- 
tion (ii.  14-26),  however,  a  different  aspect  of  faith  comes 
into  view.  The  barren_  or  dead  faith  is  mere  belief  or 
opinion,  while  the  true  faith  is  a  full  consent  of  the  will 
to  the  principles  of  Christ  who  enjoins  a  life  of  service 
Even  the  former  is  really  faith  in  the  sense  that  it  is  an 
element  of  faith  ;  yet  it  falls  far  short  of  being  faith  in  its 
full  meaning  and  true  nature.  To  me  it  seems  natural  to 
1  N.  T.  Theol.  I.  369  (Bk.  III.  ii.  ch.  iv.  §  2). 


THE   EPISTLE    OF   JAMES  291 

suppose  that  the  shading  of  thought  in  the  use  of  the 
word  "  faith  "  varies  according  to  the  phase  of  the  subject 
under  consideration  and  the  special  aim  of  the  writer  in 
the  different  passages.  It  is  wholly  unnecessary  to  sup- 
pose that  James  possessed  some  abstract  definition  of  the 
subject  which  was  general  enough  to  include  both  the  false 
and  true  faith  of  ii.  14-26.  True  faithj  is ^  the  living  and 
active  spirit  of  serving  love;  dead  faith  is  a  mere  theoretic 
assent  of  the  mind  which  does  not  move  thfe  will  or  shape 
the  conduct. 

The  question  which  James  is  answering  in  our  passage 
is  :  What  are  the  conditions,  on  man's  part,  of  obtaining 
the  divine  approval  ?  What  does  God  require  of  men  ? 
His  answer  is  substantially  that  of  the  prophet  (Micah, 
vi.  8)  ;  God  requires  a  good  life.  He  understands  and 
insists  that  this  life  is  an  inner,  as  well  as  an  outer,  life. 
He  lays  no  exaggerated  emphasis  upon  outward  conduct. 
A  true  faith  is  the  root  of  the  religious  life,  but  if  it  is 
a  true  faith,  it  will  express  itself  in  action.  There  is  no\ 
conflict  of  ideas  between  the  teachings  of  James  and  oiJ 
Paul.  Both  hold  that  God  accepts  men  on  cojaditiou-jof- 
a  true  faith.  The  active  faith  of  James  is  the  faith  that 
worketh  by  love  (Gal.  v.  6),  of  which  Paul  speaks.  James 
insists  that  a  dead  faith  —  a  mere  holding  of  things  for 
time  —  cannot  save.  There  is  not  a  word  in  Paul's  writ- 
ings which  is  contrary  to  this  position.  With  Paul  true 
faith  is  vital  union  with  Christ,  and  he  shows  at  length 
how  it  involves  the  holy  life  upon  which  James  insists. 
When  Paul  declares  that  men  are  not  saved  "by  works," 
he  means  that  they  are  not  saved  by  deeds  of  obedience  to  ^ 
the  Mosaic  law  considered  as  so  inherently  meritorious 
that  they  can  found  a  claim  to  salvation.  His  aim  is  to 
exalt  the  mercy  of  God  as  the  ground  of  salvation.  There  / 
is  not  a  word  in  the  Epistle  of  James  which  is  in  the  least 
inconsistent  with  this  doctrine.  When  Paul  says  :  "  No 
salvation  by  works,"  and  James  says :  "  Justified  by 
works,"  the  term  "  works  "  is  used  with  entirely  different 
associations.  To  Paul  it  means  :  deeds  of  obedience  to 
the  law  considered  as  inherently  meritorious  and  saving ; 


292  THE  PKIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

to  James  it  means  a  good  life,  the  fruit  of  faith.  When 
Paul  says  :  "  Salvation  is  by  faith,"  and  James  says:  "  Faith 
oannot  save,"  Paul  means  that  a  true  faith  is  the  condition 
of  salvation,  and  James  means  that  a  false  faith  (  "  that 
faith,"  i.  14  —  the  meagre,  barren  faith  under  considera- 
tion) is  not.  The  two  apostles  also  use  "justification" 
differently.  With  Paul  it  relates  to  the  acceptance  of  tlie 
sinner.  With  James  it  is  used  comprehensively  of  God's 
approval  of  men.  Paul  is  discussing  the  initiative  of 
salvation,  and  faith  is  the  door  to  the  Kingdom  of  God's 
grace.  James  is  asking  what  God  in  general  requires  of 
men  —  what  are  the  nature  and  demands  of  true  religion. 
Naturally,  therefore,  Paul  dwells  on  faith,  which  stands 
logically  first,  while  James  insists  upon  the  consequences 
and  fruit  of  faith.  But  James  does  not  more  strenuously 
urge  the  necessity  of  a  good  life  than  does  Paul  in  Rom. 
v.-viii.  The  discrepancies  between  them  are  purely  verbal, 
and  are  readily  resolved  when  one  penetrates  to  the  real 
meaning  of  each. 

Our  epistle  inculcates  the  virtues  of  purity  (i.  21), 
humility,  and  kindness  (iv.  9-11).  The  Christian  should 
recognize  the  uncertainty  of  life  (iv.  14-17),  confess  his 
faults  to  his  brethren  (v.  16),  seek  to  reclaim  the  wander- 
ing (v.  20),  and  commit  his  cares  and  interests  to  God  in 
prayer  (v.  13-15).  The  Christianity  of  our  epistle  is  the 
religion  of  meekness  and  quietness,  of  submission  and  of 
trust  in  God.  Its  view  of  the  religious  life  is  simple  and 
undogmatic,  but  it  has  much  of  the  depth  of  the  wisdom 
of  Jesus  which  it  often  echoes.  Its  ideal  of  the  wise  and 
understanding  man  is  that  he  should  "  show  b}^  his  good 
life  his  works  in  meekness  of  wisdom"  (iii.  13). 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE  FIKST  EPISTLE   OF  PETER 

We  have  seen  that  the  Epistle  of  James  conceives  of 
the  gospel  as  a  spiritualized  law.  1  Peter  regards  it 
rather  as  a  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  This  conception 
underlies  the  Petrine  discourses  in  the  Acts,  and  is  fur- 
ther elaborated  in  our  epistle.  Like  the  Epistle  of  James, 
1  Peter  is  a-^practical^  l^tt^r,  designed  to  cheer  and 
strengthen  its  readers  iii.,the -endurane©  of  persecution. 
Both  writers  seek  the  edification  of  their  readers  in  the 
Christian  life  rather  than  their  instruction  in  doctrine. 
Hence  the  dogmatic  elements  of  both  letters  are  inci- 
dental, and  are  introduced  for  a  purely  practical  purpose. 
The  subjects  of  justification,  the  Jewish  law,  and  circum- 
cision are  not  touched  upon  in  our  epistle.  In  a  greater 
degree  than  James,  Peter  dwells  upon  the  sufferings,  res- 
urrection, and  exaltation  of  Christ,  but  he  regards  these 
chiefly  as  furnishing  an  example  and  as  a  motive  of  amend- 
ment. These  are  the  marks  of  an  earlier  and  simpler  the- 
ology which  befits  the  primitive  apostolic  age. 

The  epistle  bears  throughout  an  Old  Testament  impress. 
The  religion  of  Christ  is  the  realization  of  the  hope  of 
Israel.  The  Saviour  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophetic 
visions.  Hence  the  writer's  thought  is  largely  cast  into 
Jewish  forms.  Christ  is  the  spotless  lamb  (i.  19);  the 
corner-stone  of  God's  spiritual  house  (ii.  6-8).  Chris- 
tians are  the  true  elect  race  (ii.  9) ;  they  are  living  stones 
built  up  into  a  holy  temple  (ii.  4,  5);  they  are  a  royal 
priesthood,  a  peculiar  possession  of  God  (ii.  9,  10).  But 
our  author  is  well  aware  of  the  real  separation  between 
Judaism  and  Christianity.  To  the  foi'mer,  Christ  has 
become  a  "stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of  offence" 

293 


294  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

(ii.  8).  The  theocratic  people  have  forfeited  their  birth- 
right, and  those  "who  in  time  past  were  no  people" 
(ii.  10),  the  Gentiles,  have  through  faith  and  obedience 
inherited  the  promised  blessing.  We  hear  in  such  refer- 
ences to  the  disobedience  of  the  Jewish  nation  an  echo  of 
Peter's  discourses  in  the  Acts,  in  which  he  charges  upon 
the  people  the  guilt  of  rejecting  the  Messiah. 

As  has  been  intimated,  the  primary  purpose  of  1  Peter 
was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  to  comfort 
the  readers  in  their  sufferings  for  Christ's  sake.  The 
allusions  to  these  heavy  trials  form  the  dark  background 
Ion  which  the  author  paints  the  bright  hope  of  the  gospel. 
\The  two  key-words  of  the  letter  are  suffering  and  liope. 
Present  trials  are  to  be  patiently  endured  (i.  6 ;  ii.  19 ; 
iii.  14;  iv.  12  sg.);  a  glorious  deliverance  awaits  those 
who  suffer  unjustly,  because  of  their  loyalty  to  Christ 
(i.  7,  13  ;  ii.  21 ;  iv.  13,  14).  This  thought  furnishes  the 
occasion  for  the  various  doctrinal  allusions  in  the  letter, 
especially  those  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glories 
which  followed  them  (i.  11).  The  resurrection,  which  is 
strongly  emphasized,  is  regarded,  as  in  the  discourses,  as 
a  ground  of  comfort  and  hope  (i.  3 ;  iii.  21).  The  glori- 
ous appearing  of  Christ  is  presented,  as  before,  as  the 
object  of  the  believer's  eager  expectation  —  the  event  in 
which  his  hope  of  salvation  shall  be  realized  (i.  5,  13 ;  iv. 
13;  Y.  4). 

It  has  been  remarked  that  the  idea  of  the  Messianic 
glory  remained  throughout  his  Christian  life  the  central 
thought  of  the  apostle  Peter. ^  The  relation  of  that  glory 
to  suffering  was  the  principal  problem  with  which  his 
mind  sought  to  deal.  In  the  first  period  of  his  life,  rep- 
resented by  the  Gospels,  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  rec- 
oncile the  two  ideas.  The  Messiah  must  not  suffer.  "  Be 
it  far  from  thee.  Lord;  this  shall  never  be  unto  thee," 
he  exclaimed  (Mt.  xvi.  22)  when  Jesus  had  predicted  his 
death  ;  and  when,  later,  he  entered  the  shadow  of  the 
cross,  he  denied  his  Lord  and  fled.  In  the  second  period, 
represented  by  the  discourses  in  Acts,  he  has  made  an 

1  See  Lechler,  Das  apos.  u.  nachapos.  Zeitalter,  pp.  442,  443. 


THE   FIKST   EPISTLE   OF   PETER  295 

effort  to  combine  the  two  ideas.  The  Old  Testament 
foretells  Messiah's  sufferings.  It  must  have  been  a  part 
of  the  divine  plan  that  he  should  suff'er.  But  the  two 
things  are  rather  externally  combined.  They  must  some- 
how belong  together,  but  the  inner  ground  of  their  unity 
is  not  yet  apparent.  In  the  third  period,  represented  by 
our  epistle,  the  two  conceptions  are  no  longer  regarded  as 
incompatible.  The  way  of  the  cross  is  the  way  of  light 
and  blessedness,  —  via  crucis,  via  lucis.  Suffering  is  a 
part  of  that  testing  process,  without  which  no  moral  des- 
tiny can  be  complete.  The  path  of  humiliation  was  the 
way  to  the  Messiah's  true  glory  and  crown,  and  he  has 
left  us  an  example  that  we  should  follow  his  steps  (ii.  21). 

Peter  grounds  the  work  of  salvation  in  the  gracious 
purpose  of  God.  Here,  again,  his  mode  of  thought  and 
expression  is  quite  Jewish.  The  "  elect "  are,  however, 
no  longer  the  Jewish  people  only,  but  include  men  of 
many  nations  (i.  1,  2  ;  ii.  4,  9).  The  appearance  of  Christ 
in  history  (i.  20),  and  the  bestowment  of  an  inheritance 
of  blessedness  through  him  (i.  4),  were  contemplated  in 
the  eternal  plan  of  God.  Of  this  idea  of  the  divine  fore- 
knowledge Peter  makes  a  purely  practical  use.  The  sav- 
ing work  of  Christ,  and  the  extension  of  God's  mercy 
beyond  Israel,  were  no  after-thought.  They  had  their 
place  in  the  counsels  of  divine  love. 

In  three  passages  the  name  "  Father  "  is  applied  to  God. 
He  is  called  "the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ"  (i.  3).  Peter  also  speaks  of  the  Christians  call- 
ing on  God  "  as  Father "  (i.  17),  that  is,  in  distinction 
from  others,  recognizing  his  paternal  character.  He  is 
also  called  "the  Father"  (i.  2),  without  further  defini- 
tion, in  connection  with  his  gracious  purpose  of  salvation, 
so  that  we  recognize  here  the  idea  of  Jesus  that  father- 
hood is  a  name  for  God's  ethical  character  —  his  universal 
and  holy  love.  Strong  emphasis  is  laid  in  our  epistle 
upon  the  moral  perfections  of  God.  As  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, God  is  holy,  and  his  holiness  is  the  prototype  of  all 
goodness  in  man  (i.  15,  16).  He  is  the  impartial  judge 
of  men  who  does  not  estimate  or  treat  them  according  to 


296  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

any  external  standard  (i.  17).  But  the  complementary 
attribute  of  mercy  is  even  more  strongly  emphasized. 
This  mercy  is  the  source  of  hope  and  salvation  (i.  3). 
God  is  "  the  God  of  all  grace  "  (v.  10).  All  the  blessings 
of  the  gospel  are  the  gifts  of  the  "  varied  grace  (ttolklXt] 
X^P^^^  of  God"  (iv.  10).  These  blessings  are  the  product 
and  expression  of  his  "virtues  "  (aperal^  ii.  9).  Holy  love 
best  summarizes  Peter's  doctrine  of  God. 

His  doctrine  of  salvation  is  also  expressed  in  Old  Testa- 
ment terms.  It  is  an  "inheritance"  (i.  4),  the  fulfil- 
ment of  a  hope  which  had  been  divinely  discerned  and 

<;^     partially   expressed   by   the   prophets   (i.    10-12).     This 
^:  _K\r}povo/jLia  corresponds  to  the  "  Kingdom  of  God  "  in  the 

J  Synoptics,  and  to  "  eternal  life  "  in  the  fourth  Gospel  — 
terms  which  are  not  found  in  our  epistle.^  Our  author 
describes,  mainly  in  Old  Testament  language,  the  refusal 
of  their  birthright  by  the  Jews.  They  have  rejected  the 
Messiah,  the  chief  corner-stone  on  which  God  would  build 
his  spiritual  temple  (ii.  4-8).  He  had  dwelt  on  the  same 
fact  in  one  of  his  discourses,  and  had  described  it  in  the 
same  Old  Testament  words  (Acts  iv.  11,  12).  He  does 
not  discuss  the  problems  to  which  this  lapse  of  the  nation 
gives  rise,  as  Paul  does  (Rom.  ix.-xi.).  He  only  says  that 
the  Jews,  being  disobedient,  "  were  appointed  "  (ireOrjaav) 
unto  stumbling.  The  reference  is  to  the  prophetic  de- 
scription (Is.  viii.  14, 15)  of  many  taking  offence  at  God's 
word,  and  of  their  consequent  confusion.  The  meaning 
seems  to  be  that  their  stumbling  is  the  penalty  which  God 
has  attached  to  their  disobedience.  Peter's  view  is  the 
same  as  Paul's,  that  Israel  lost  his  place  as  the  elect  race 
by  unbelief  (Rom.  xi.  20).  Not  descent  from  Jewish 
stock,  but  faithfulness  to  God  is  the  condition  on  which 
participation  in  the  election  is  assured.  The  prophetic 
word  still  holds  good:  "To  him  that  believeth"  (Is. 
xxviii.  16).  With  Peter  as  with  Paul  (Gal.  iii.  8),  it  is 
the  believing  who  are  the  true  sons  of  Abraham.  There 
is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God  (cf.  Acts  x.  34,  35). 
Men  of  any  nation  who  will  heed  his  word  and  receive  his 
1  He  once  (iii.  7)  uses  ^uj-q  as  a  designation  of  salvation. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE    OF   PETER  297 

Son  may  become  part  of  the  elect  race,  the  ro^^al  priest- 
hood, the  holy  nation  (ii.  9).  Thus  Jews  and  Gentiles 
have,  to  a  great  extent,  changed  places.  The  despised 
heathen,  the  "no  people"  (ii.  10),  have  obtained  the 
Messianic  blessing  which  the  "peculiar  people"  of  God 
by  disobedience  forfeited.  These  passages  express  the 
conclusion  to  which  the  apostle  was  driven  by  his  experi- 
ence as  an  aTroaroXo^;  r^?  7reptTo/jLrj<;  (Gal.  ii.  9).  They  are  | 
in  entire  accord  with  the  course  of  events  in  Peter's  career  i 
as  described  in  Acts,  and  with  the  references  made  by  Paul 
in  Galatians  to  Peter's  customary  attitude  and  action  in 
regard  to  the  extension  of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles. 

The  references  to  sin  in  our  epistle  are  chiefly  made  in 
\  connection  with  the  description  of  the  pre^Clii4et-ian  con- 
\dition  of  the  Gentile  readers.  As  with  James  and  Paul, 
strong  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the, flesh  as  a  source  and  seat 
of  sin.  The  author  beseeches  his  readers  to  "  abstain  from 
fleshly  lusts  (crapiciKal  €7n6v^i(ai)^  which  war  against  the 
soul"  (ii.  11),  and  describes  their  former  manner  of  life 
as  a  living  in  the  flesh  (ev  aapKi  ^taxrat)  when  they 
"  walked  in  lasciviousness,  lusts,  winebibbings,  revellings, 
carousings,  and  abominable  idolatries  "  (iv.  2,  3).  But 
sensuous  sins  are  not  the  only  ones  of  which  our  author 
speaks.  He  cautions  against  malice,  deceit,  hypocrisy, 
envy,  and  malignant  speech  (ii.  1).  It  does  not  seem  to 
me  that  adp^  is  used,  in  our  epistle,  in  that  wider  ethical 
sense  which  it  bears  in  Paul  "  as  the  real  ground  of  all 
sin."  ^  Only  in  ii.  11  and  iv.  2  is  o-dp^  spoken  of  as  a 
source  of  sin,  and  there  only  sensuous  sins  are  mentioned. 
In  all  the  other  passages  where  crdp^  occurs  (i.  24 ;  iii.  18, 
21 ;  iv.  1,  6)  it  is  used,  in  a  non-ethical  sense,  to  denote 
the  material  of  the  body.  Here,  then,  we  find  a  different 
usage  from  that  of  Paul,  as  we  do  also  (quite  in  accord 
with  the  usage  in  the  Synoptics,  Mt.  x.  28 ;  Mk.  viii.  35, 
36)  in  the  employment  of  yjrvxv  to  denote  the  higher  life 
in  which  man  is  akin  to  God  (ii.  11),  where  Paul  would 
have  employed  irvevp^a  or  ea(o  dvOpoairo^. 

Much  more  is  said  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ  in 
1  Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theol.  I.  388  (Bk.  III.  iii.  ch.  ii.  §  3). 


298  THE   PEIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

our  epistle  than  in  that  of  James.  As  in  James,  so  here, 
X.pLaT6<;  has  ceased  to  be  a  title  and  has  become  a  proper 
name.  It  is  a23]3ended  to  the  name  "  Jesus  "  without  the 
article  (i.  2,  3,  7,  13 ;  ii.  5 ;  iii.  21 ;  iv.  11),  but  is  much 
more  commonly  used  alone  (i.  11,  19 ;  ii.  21 ;  iii.  15,  18 ; 
iv.  1  et  al.').  As  in  the  discourses  of  Acts  and  in  James, 
the  title  fcvpto^  is  several  times  applied  to  him  (i.  3  ;  ii.  13  ; 
iii.  15).  Christ  is  the  bearer  of  salvation,  tlie  chief  corner- 
stone of  God's  spiritual  temple,  the  She^^herd  and  Bishop 
of  souls  (i.  2  ;  ii.  4  sq.,  25  ;  v.  4).  He  is  sinless.  He  "  did 
no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth  "  (ii.  22).  He 
is  the  "Lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot"  (i.  19); 
the  "  righteous  "  who  died  "  on  behalf  of  the  unrigliteous  " 
(iii.  18).  He  is  not  directly  called  Son  of  God,  but  his 
sonship  is  certainly  implied  when  God  is  spoken  of  as  "  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  (i.  3).  Li  the  view  of  our 
epistle,  Jesus  is  Messiah,  Lord,  the  sinless  author  of  sal- 
vation, and  Son  of  God.  Do  not  these  predicates  involve 
the  ascription  to  him  of  a  superhuman  character  ? 

Two  other  passages  must  be  more  particularly  consid- 
ered in  their  bearing  upon  this  question.  They  are  i.  11 
and  i.  20.  In  the  first  passage  the  author  is  describing  the 
glorious  salvation  which  has  been  provided  in  Christ.  It 
surpassed,  he  says,  the  brightest  visions  of  prophets.  They 
but  partially  discerned  its  greatness.  They  groped,  as  it 
were,  after  its  meaning,  "  searching  what  time  or  what 
manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them 
(to  iv  avTOL<;  irvev/jia  ^piarov)  did  point  unto,  when  it  tes- 
tified beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glories 
that  should  follow  them  "  (i.  11).  In  the  second  passage 
the  writer,  after  mentioning  the  moral  value  of  Christ's 
death  and  his  sinless  perfection,  adds :  "  Who  was  fore- 
known indeed  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  Qrrpo- 
eyvco(TfjL€vov  irpo  Kara^oXrj^  KoapLOv)^  but  was  manifested  at 
the  end  of  the  times  for  your  sake  "  (i.  20).  The  question 
to  be  considered  is  whether  these  passages  imply  a  real,  or 
only  an  ideal,  preexistence  of  Christ.^     I  will  summarize 

1  Among  writers  on  Biblical  Theology  who  find  the  idea  of  real  preex- 
istence in  these  passages  are  Lechler,  Gloag,  Pfleiderer,  Bovon,  and  Holtz- 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   PETER  299 

the  principal  arguments  in  favor  of  the  theory  of  ideal 
preexistence.  They  are  as  follows:  (1)  "Foreknown" 
(^Trpoeyvcoa/jievov^,  in  i.  20,  cannot  imply  a  real  preexistence 
of  Christ,  because,  in  i.  2,  Christians  are  also  said  to  have 
been  "foreknown"  (e/cXe/crot  Kara  7rp6<yv(oa-tv  deov  Trar/oo?). 
(2)  The  contrast  between  "foreknoAvn"  and  "manifested" 
{(j^avepcoOevTo^')  does  not  favor  the  idea  of  real  preexistence, 
because  "manifested"  refers  to  Christ's  "becoming  known 
in  the  world"  (^das  In  der  Welt  hundwerden i)  —  "  the  mani- 
festation of  Christ  in  his  significance  as  Messianic  Re- 
deemer, .  .  .  and  this  manifestation  is  contrasted  with  the 
concealment  of  that  significance  in  the  divine  decree."  ^ 
No  reference  is,  then,  to  be  found  here  to  an  appearance 
of  Christ  in  the  world  from  a  state  of  pre -temporal  exist- 
ence. (3)  The  phrase  "  Spirit  of  Christ,"  in  i.  11,  does  not 
refer  to  Christ  as  preexistent,  because  the  name  "  Christ " 
is  used  in  the  same  verse  (ra  ek  Xptarov  iraOrjixara)  in  the 
historic  sense.  Weiss  admits  that,  since  Xpiaro^  is  used 
in  our  epistle  as  a  proper  name,  it  could  with  perfect  pro- 
priety be  applied  to  the  preexistent  Christ,  but  thinks  it 
would  be  surprising  if  it  were  used  in  the  same  sentence 
of  the  preexistent  and  of  the  historical  Christ.  He  con- 
cludes that  "  this  Spirit  is  none  other  than  the  eternal 
Spirit  of  God,  in  which  the  decree  relating  to  the  Messianic 
salvation  was  formed  from  eternity."^ 

The  arguments  per  contra  are  as  follows:  (1)  The  cor- 
relation of  "foreknown"  and  "manifested"  in  i.  20  most 
naturally  implies  real  preexistence.  Both  participles  are 
predicated  of  the  same  subject,  and,  since  the  latter  is  predi- 
cated of  a  real  subject,  it  follows  that  the  former  also  is. 
Moreover,  when  it  is  said  that  anything  is  "  manifested," 
the  only  natural  meaning  is  that  it  existed  before  its 
manifestation,  but  in  a  state  of  concealment.  Our  author 
says  that  Christ  was  "  manifested  "  as  the  Redeemer,  and 

mann.  The  opposite  view  is  taken  by  Schmid,  Weiss,  Beysclilag,  and 
Briggs. 

1  Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theol.  I.  393  (Bk.  III.  iii.  ch.  iii.  §  1). 

2  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  §  48,  a. 

3  Op.  cit.  §  48,  b. 


300  THE  PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

that  before  such  manifestation  he  was  "  foreknown." 
Both  the  implications  of  the  word  "  manifested,"  and  its 
correlation  with  "foreknown,"  therefore,  strongly  favor 
the  idea  of  personal  preexistence.  (2)  The  word  "  fore- 
known," in  itself  considered,  might  indeed  refer  to  ideal 
preexistence  only.  Christians  are,  by  implication,  spoken 
of  as  foreknown  by  God.  But  nothing  resembling  the 
statement  that  believers  are  first  "  foreknown  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  and  then  "manifested,"  is  found 
either  in  verse  2,  or  in  our  epistle  elsewhere,  or  in  the 
New  Testament  anywhere.  (3)  The  objection  that  Xpto-rov 
would  not  be  used  of  the  preexistent  and  of  the  historical 
Christ  (i.  11)  in  the  same  connection  is  without  force.  If 
Peter  had  the  idea  of  Christ's  pre-temporal  existence,  his 
language  here  would  involve  no  incongruity.  The  word 
XptaTov  would  be  applied  to  the  same  person  in  both 
cases ;  in  the  former  to  him  before,  in  the  latter  to  him 
after,  his  historical  appearance.  On  this  view,  the  use  of 
XpLG-Tov  is  more  congruous  than  on  the  other  interpre- 
tation, which  understands  Trvevfia  Xpiarov  to  mean  the 
divine  Spirit,  which,  at  the  time  of  its  operation  in  the 
prophets,  was  not  yet  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  but  became 
such  by  its  bestowment  upon  him  in  his  human  life,  while 
iraOrjiJLaTa  Xpiarov  bears  a  purely  historic  sense.  It  is  far 
more  natural  to  take  Xpiarov  as  referring  in  both  cases 
("  Spirit  of  Christ "  ;  "sufferings  of  Christ")  to  the  per- 
sonal Christ.  In  the  first  phrase,  it  refers  to  the  person 
whose  spirit  inspired  the  prophets ;  in  the  second,  to  the 
same  person  who  suffered.  If  this  is  the  meaning,  there 
could  have  been  no  occasion  to  indicate  that  the  pre- 
existent Christ  was  referred  to  in  the  first  case,  and  the 
historic  Christ  in  the  second.  The  language  of  the  verse 
as  a  whole  already  makes  that  plain  enough. ^  The  ques- 
tion involved  in  these  passages  is  not  capable  of  a  decisive 
solution,  but  to  me  this  second  interpretation  seems  more 

1  Pfleiderer,  Paulinismns,  p.  423,  and  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  TJieol.  II. 
311,  who  adopt  this  view  of  the  passages,  see  in  them  an  evidence  of  the 
dependence  of  our  epistle  upon  Paul,  and  a  proof  that  it  is  not  an  exam- 
ple of  primitive  apostolic  teaching.     In  this  view  the  idea  of  Christ's 


THE   FIRST    EPISTLE   OF   PETER  301 

probably  correct.  If  so,  we  must  recognize  in  our  epis- 
tle a  distinct  advance  upon  the  theology  of  the  Petrine 
discourses  in  Acts. 

The  sufferings  of  Christ  are  represented  as  furnishing  | 
to  Christians  an  example  of  the  patient  endurance  of' 
liardships  (ii.  21  ;  iv.  1,  13).  The  readers  are  exhortedi 
to  see  to  it  that  the  sufferings  which  they  are  enduring 
are  not  deserved.  There  is  no  blessing  in  suffering  fon 
those  who  suffer  in  consequence  of  crimes;  but  "if  one^ 
suffers  as  a  Christian,  let  him  not  be  ashamed"  (iv.  16). 
If  men  partake  of  Christ's  sufferings  (iv.  13);  if  they  suf- 
fer wrongfully,  and  yet  do  not  return  evil  for  evil  (ii.  19," 
20),  they  are  then  imitating  Christ's  example  and  may  re- 
joice in  the  very  midst  of  their  hardships.  But  this  is  not, 
for  the  mind  of  Peter,  the  whole  significance  of  Christ's 
suffering  and  death.  He  died  "on  account  of  sins" 
(7re/36  aixapTLOiv)^  "that  he  might  bring  us  to  God"  (iii. 
18).  Our  epistle  distinctly  presents  the  idea  that  Christ's 
death  was  redemptive  ;  that,  in  some  way,  it  procured  or 
conditioned  the  bestowment  of  divine  grace.  The  blood 
of  Christ  is  contemplated  as  a  means  of  cleansing  (i.  2)  ; 
as  a  precious  ransom-price  whereby  the  readers'  spiritual 
liberty  was  procured.  In  the  visions  of  the  prophets  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  were  seen  as  a  part  of  his  saving 
mission  (i.  11).  The  apostle  designates  himself  as  one 
who  testifies  concerning  the  sufferings  of  Christ  (v.  1)  — ■ 
a  designation  which  most  naturally  includes  testimony  to 
their  meaning  as  well  as  to  their  occurrence.  To  this 
meaning  he  refers  when  he  says  (probably  in  allusion 
to  the  picture  of  the  suffering  Servant  in  Is.  liii.)  that 
Christ  "  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  upon  the  tree  "  (ii. 
21),  "the  righteous  on  behalf  of  the  unrighteous"  (hUaio^ 
vTrep  uSl/ccov,  iii.  18),  and  that  "  by  his  stripes  we  are 
healed"  (ii.  24;  cf.  Is.  liii.  5,  11). 

It  is  noticeable  that  Peter    no   longer   speaks  of  the  \y 

preexistence  was  developed  as  a  means  of  Christianizing  the  Old  Testa- 
ment by  taking  back  into  it  the  Christian  revelation.  Pfleiderer  finds 
parallels  to  the  doctrine  of  preexistence  in  our  epistle  in  the  Epistles  of 
Clement  of  Rome  and  of  Barnabas.      Urchristenthum,  pp.  648,  659,  668. 


302  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

death,  of  Jesus,  as  in  Acts,  as  the  crime  of  the  Jewish 
people.  That  mode  of  viewing  the  subject  has  dis- 
appeared, and  the  redemptive  significance  of  the  event, 
after  which  he  is  seen  in  the  discourses  in  Acts  to  be 
uncertainly  groping,  comes  out  into  clear  expression. 
It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  set 
in  relation  to  moral  cleansing,  rather  than  to  a  legal 
acquittal  from  guilt.  That  his  death  is  a  means  to  the 
salvation  of  men  is  explicitly  asserted.  He  bore  the  sins 
of  men  ;  he  died  on  behalf  of  unrighteous  men  that  he 
might  bring  them  to  God.  He  redeems  men  by  his  blood. 
But  these  are,  after  all,  indefinite  expressions.  We  are 
not  told  in  what  sense  he  bore  the  sins  of  men,  or  how  his 
blood  avails  to  redeem  them.  He  suffered  to  deliver  men 
from  sin  ;  but  how  does  his  suffering  accomplish  that 
deliverance  ?  Some  reply  that  since  this  suffering  is 
elsewhere  represented  as  an  example  (ii.  21 ;  iv.  1),  the 
answer  is  that  Christ's  sufferings  save  men  by  their 
becoming  "  partakers  "  of  them  (iv.  13),  that  is,  by  their 
imitating  his  patient  endurance. ^  But  few  scholars  sup- 
port this  view.  Those  who  hold  ^  that  our  author's  view 
of  redemption  is  an  echo  of  that  of  Paul,  must,  of  course, 
regard  such  an  interpretation  as  quite  inadequate.^  But 
apart  from  that  view,  it  seems  to  me  extremely  doubtful 
if  our  author's  reference  to  the  prophetic  prevision  of 
Messiah's  sufferings  (i.  11),  to  the  lamb  of  Old  Testament 
sacrifice^  (i.  19),  and  to  Christ's  blood  as  a  ransom  (i.  18), 

1  So  Beyschlag,  iV.  T.  Theol.  I.  396  (Bk.  III.  iii.  ch.  iii.  §  2)  :  "This 
moral  deliverance  is  mediated  through  the  moral  impression  of  Jesus' 
sufferings  and  death.  The  suffering  of  Christ  can  only  work  as  an 
example  by  means  of  the  moral  impression  which  it  makes,  and  only 
for  those  who  resign  themselves  to  this  impression." 

2  As  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  I.  312,  and  Bovon,  Theologie  du  N.  T. 
II.  473. 

3  Pfleiderer,  however,  thinks  that  our  epistle  illustrates  a  weakened, 
popular  Paulinism  and  interprets  it  in  a  way  resembling  Beysch^ag's. 
Urchristenthum,  p.  657  sq. 

*  The  reference  in  the  words  "a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without 
spot"  (i.  19)  seems  to  me  to  be  to  the  necessary  qualities  of  the  sacrificial 
lamb  in  general  (Lev.  xxii.  20,  21),  rather  than  to  the  paschal  lamb 
specifically.  So  Weiss,  Lechler,  Holtzmann.  Fer  contra,  Ritschl  and 
Beyschlag. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   PETER  303 

offered  once  for  all  (^dira^,  iii.  18)  on  behalf  of  sinners, 
can  be  satisfied  by  the  theory  of  redemption  by  example. 
To  pursue  the  question  further  would  carry  us  too  far 
into  the  field  of  inference.  The  temptation  is  strong  to 
derive  from  these  simple  words  a  theory  of  atonement  — 
either  Paul's,  or,  even  more  naturally,  one's  own.  If  we 
steadfastly  refuse  to  do  this,  we  shall,  I  think,  abide  by 
the  conclusion  that,  to  the  mind  of  Peter,  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  were  a  means  of  salvation,  but  that  no  theory  or 
philosophy  of  this  fact  is  offered  us.  If  the  references  to 
these  sufferings  as  an  example  suggest  the  view  that  he 
saves  men  by  inciting  them  to  do  as  he  did,  the  Old 
Testament  language  and  the  correlation  of  his  death  with 
sin  constrain  us  to  assume  that  he  also  had  in  mind  some- 
thing more  than  this. 

Our  e23istle  places  strong  emphasis  upon  the  resurrec-  V 
tion  of  Jesus  as  a  ground  of  faith  and  hope.  It  was  the 
resurrection  which  had  made  the  readers  confident  of 
obtaining  the  heavenly  inheritance  to  be  bestowed  at  the 
parousia  (i.  3-5).  The  resurrection  was  a  saving  deed  in 
the  sense  that  it  furnished  a  powerful  motive  to  faith. 
"  God  raised  him  from  the  dead  and  gave  him  glory  so 
that  yonr  faith  and  hope  might  be  in  God  "  (i.  21).  The 
resurrection  not  only  assured  the  disciples  of  Christ's  con- 
tinued life,  but  attested  his  divine  mission  and  directed 
the  thoughts  of  his  followers  to  the  heavenly  world  to 
which  he  now  belonged.  The  resurrection  implies  the 
ascension  of  Christ  to  the  throne  of  power  and  glory 
(iii.  22),  and  is  thus  a  guaranty  of  the  authority  and 
dominion  of  Christ  and  of  the  completion  of  the  work  of 
salvation.  To  this  heavenly  world  where  Christ  is,  his 
followers  also  belong.  Here  they  are  "  sojourners  and 
pilgrims  "  (i.  1,  17 ;  ii.  11),  living  by  hope  and  travelling 
on  to  the  goal  of  heavenly  blessedness.  We  note  here 
the  same  emphasis  upon  the  saving  value  of  the  resurrec- 
tion as  we  observed  in  the  Petrine  discourses  in  Acts, 
but  with  a  deeper  view  of  its  significance.  In  the  dis- 
courses the  resurrection  is  chiefly  viewed  as  an  act  of 
power  by  which  the  purpose  of  the  Jews  was  thwarted 


304  THE   PKIMITIVE  APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

and  the  messiahsliip  of  Jesus  attested.  In  our  epistle 
it  is  more  closely  correlated  with  the  religious  life  as  a 
ground  of  hope,  on  tlie  one  hand,  and  with  the  import  of 
Jesus'  person  as  the  ever-living  and  glorious  Redeemer,  on 
the  other. 

The  epistle  refers  to  another  phase  or  effect  of  Christ's 
saving  Avork,  which  has  given  rise  to  much  perplexity 
and  wide  differences  of  opinion  among  exegetes  and  theo- 
logians. I  refer  to  the  preaching  "  to  the  spirits  in  prison  " 
(iii.  18-20)  or  "  to  the  dead  "  (iv.  6).  One  thing  is  clear  : 
It  is  the  aim  of  both  these  passages  to  magnify  the  grace 
of  redemption.  They  read  thus  ;  "  Because  Christ  also 
suffered  for  sins  once,  the  righteous  for  the  unrighteous, 
that  he  might  bring  us  to  God ;  being  put  to  death  in  the 
flesh,  but  quickened  in  the  spirit ;  in  which  also  he  went 
and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in  prison,  which  aforetime 
were  disobedient,  when  the  longsuffering  of  God  waited 
in  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a  preparing, 
wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls,  were  saved  through 
water"  (iii.  18-20).  "For  unto  this  end  was  the  gospel 
preached  even  to  the  dead,  that  they  might  be  judged 
according  to  men  in  the  flesh,  but  live  according  to  God 
in  the  spirit"  (iv.  6). 

The  first  passage  stands  connected  with  the  description 
of  the  great  mercy  of  Christ  in  suffering  for  men,  "  tlie 
righteous  for  the  unrighteous,"  and,  in  the  second  passage, 
it  is  stated  that  the  final  purpose  of  the  preaching  to  the 
dead  was  "  that  they  might  live  according  to  God  in  the 
spirit."  There  are  three  principal  theories  of  the  mean- 
ing of  these  verses :  (1)  Christ  preached  in  and  through 
Noah,  "a  preacher  of  righteousness"  (2  Pet.  ii.  5),  to 
the  men  of  Noah's  time.  The  "spirits  in  prison,"  "the 
dead,"  to  whom  he  preached  are  noiv  dead,  but  were  liv- 
ing when  he  preached  to  them.  (2)  In  the  interval 
between  his  death  and  resurrection  Christ  went  to  the 
realm  of  the  dead  and  presented  the  offer  of  salvation  to 
the  men  of  Noah's  time,  wlio  are  called  "  spirits  in  prison." 
(3)  By  the  "  spirits  in  prison "  are  here  meant  the  sin- 
ful angels,  the  "sons  of  God"  of  Gen.  vi.  1  sq.^  who  had 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   PETER  305 

seduced  the  daughters  of  men,  whom  God  had  cast  down 
to  Tartarus  (2  Pet.  ii.  4),  and  to  whom  Christ  went  and 
preached,  that  is,  proclaimed  their  judgment.  I  will 
briefly  summarize  the  arguments  which  are  urged  for  and 
against  each  of  these  views. 

In  favor  of  the  first  view  the  following  considerations 
are  urged  :  («)  The  idea  of  a  preaching  in  Hades  is 
unsupported  elsewhere  in  Scripture.  (b)  The  histori- 
cal references  in  the  passage  are  all  adapted  to  carry  the 
mind  back  to  the  "  days  of  Noah  "  as  the  time  which  is  in 
the  apostle's  mind,  e.g.  "the  longsuffering  of  God,"  "the 
building  of  the  ark,"  "the  saving  of  a  few."^  (c)  The 
absence  of  the  article  before  aireiOriaaat  ("  disobeyed,"  iii. 
19)  shows  that  the  participle  is  not  attributive  or  defini- 
tive, but  predicative  or  circumstantial,  and  hence  should 
be  translated,  not  "  which  aforetime  were  disobedient " 
(as  if  it  were  rot?  aireiOrjaacn).,  but  "  when  once  they  dis- 
obeyed." Thus  the  whole  sentence  would  mean:  Christ 
preached  to  those  who  are  now  spirits  in  prison  when  once 
they  disobeyed,  that  is,  in  Noah's  time.^  (t?)  The  phrases 
"in  the  flesh"  and  "in  the  spirit"  (aapKi^  irveviiaTi)  most 
naturally  designate  two  aspects  of  Christ's  being  (<?/*.  Rom. 
i.  3,  4),  and  thus  the  latter  points,  not  to  a  post  mortem 
activity  of  Christ,  but  simply  to  his  activity  in  a  spiritual 
form  of  existence  (cf.  i.  11).  (e)  In  the  second  passage 
Peter  is  speaking  of  the  coming  of  Christ  to  judgment. 
He  transports  himself  in  thought  to  the  time  of  his  parou- 
sia,  and  speaks  of  "  living  and  dead  "  from  the  standpoint 
of  that  future  time.  The  dead  to  whom  Christ  will  have 
preached  are  now  living,  but  will  be  dead  at  the  second 
advent.^  The  considerations  which  are  advanced  in  favor 
of  other  view^s  are  partly  of  the  nature  of  replies  to  these 
arguments.  The  question  respecting  the  force  of  the 
participle  aireiOr^aao-L  requires  special  notice.  Most  com- 
mentators and  New  Testament  grammarians  do  not  sup- 

1  So  Salmond,  Christian  Doctrine  of  Immortality^  p.  460, 

2  So  Dr.  S.  C.  Bartlett  in  the  New  Englander  for  October,  1872,  and 
Dr.  Salmond,  op.  cit.,  p.  463. 

3  So  Bovon,  Theolocjie  du  N.  T.  ii.  465. 


306  THE  PRIMITIVE  APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

port  the  contention  just  mentioned  respecting  the  force 
of  the  anarthrous  aireiOrjaaaL,  but  hold  that  the  participle 
may  quite  well  have  a  definitive  force.  Referring  to  the 
argument  given  above,  Huther  says  ;  "  This  is  not  the 
case  (that  the  absence  of  the  article  necessarily  makes 
the  participle  predicative),  since  the  participle,  added  with 
adjectival  force  to  a  substantive,  is  often  enough  joined 
to  the  latter  without  an  article."  ^ 

The  second  view  is  that  "  Christ  in  the  spirit,  according 
to  which  he  had  been  made  alive,  preached  to  the  spirits 
in  prison"  (Huther)  ;  that  "Christ  went  down  to  Hades 
iv  TTvevfiaTL  in  order  to  bring  the  message  of  salvation  to 
the  spirits  which  were  found  there  in  prison"  (Weiss). 
The  chief  arguments  for  this  interpretation  are  as  follows: 
(a)  The  correspondence  of  Trvevixan  and  TrvevfiaaLv.  He 
was  quickened  and  went  in  the  spirit^  and  preached  to  the 
spirits.  The  correlation  of  OavarcdOei^  ("put  to  death"  — 
which  can  only  refer  to  his  crucifixion)  and  ^Q)07roL7j6€L<; 
("quickened")  requires  that  the  latter  should  refer  to 
some  experience  which  was  the  counterpart  of  his  cruci- 
fixion. It  was  in  connection  -with  that  experience  in  a 
spiritual  state  that  he  went  and  preached  to  spirits.  (5)  It 
is  natural  to  take  iropevOek  before  i/ci]pv^ev  in  verse  19 
("  he  went  and  preached  ")  in  the  same  sense  as  in  verse 
22  Q'  having  gone  into  heaven").  The  latter  denotes  his 
ascension  to  heaven ;  the  former  his  descent  ad  inferos. 
The  whole  passage  (^vv.  18-22)  describes  his  death  and  the 
events  which  followed,  culminating  in  the  ascension  (v.  22). 
'  (c)  The  advent  irore  ("  aforetime  ")  stands  with  aTretOr)- 
craa-L  ("disobedient")  and  not  with  eKrjpv^ev  ("preached"). 
The  statement  made  is  that  Christ  preached  to  those 
who  formerly  disobeyed.,  not  that  he  formerly  or  once 
preached  to  the  disobedient.  If  the  writer  was  thinking 
of  a  vicarious  preaching  through  Noah,  he  might  easily 
have  made    it  apparent   by  writing  irori  with  eicrjpv^ev. 

1  The  Meyer- Commentarij,  in  loco.  This  view  is  sustained  by  De 
Wette,  Alford,  Ellicott,  and  Dwight  and  the  lY.  T.  Grammars  of  Winer 
and  Buttmann.  The  case  is  strongly  advocated  and  amply  illustrated,  on 
this  side,  by  Dr.  W.  W.  Patton  in  the  Nev)  Englander  for  July,  1882. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   PETER  307 

(dT)  HvevfjLaTL  ("  in  the  spirit ")  cannot  denote  the  divine 
nature  ,of  the  preexistent  Logos,  because  it  is  the  correla- 
tive of  a-ap/cL  (''in  the  flesh").  The  first  statement  is 
that  he  was  put  to  death  as  respects  the  material  element 
of  his  personality  ;  the  next  statement  can  only  naturally 
mean  that,  as  the  counterpart  of  his  de'dih^  flesh-wise,  he 
was  quickened  into  life  as  respects  his  immaterial  part, 
spirit-ivise.  The  spirit  is  the  imperishable  element  of  the 
person  who,  as  respects  his  flesh,  died  on  the  cross.  In 
this  element  of  his  being  he  continued  to  live  and  act. 
(e)  It  is  natural  to  take  the  aorists  davaTco9eL<;,  ^cooTrotrjdek, 
TTOpevdeL^,  and  iKrjpv^ev  as  denoting  a  series  of  successive 
actions.  It  is,  in  the  highest  degree,  unnatural  to  sup- 
pose that  at  ^(oo7roL7)deL<^  or  Tropevdei^  the  thought  springs 
suddenly  back  into  antediluvian  times. ^  The  principal 
difficulties  which  have  been  found  in  this  view  are  con- 
nected, not  so  much  with  the  language  as  with  the 
thought.  It  was  the  difficulty  of  adjusting  the  idea  of 
a  preaching  of  Christ  in  Hades  to  his  doctrinal  system 
which  led  Augustine,  after  long  hesitation,  to  pronounce  in 
favor  of  the  theory  which  refers  the  preaching  in  question 
to  the  time  of  Noah.^  A  similar  difficulty,  together  with 
that  arising  from  the  silence  of  Scripture  elsewhere  con- 
cerning a  redemptive  activity  of  Christ  in  Hades,  is  still 
widely  felt,  and  has  operated  to  perpetuate  the  explanation 
which  Augustine  did  so  much  to  establish  in  the  Church.^ 
The  principal  arguments  for  the  third  view  —  that  by 
''  spirits  in  prison  "  sinful  angels  are  meant,  and  that  after 

1  Among  modern  scholars  who  adopt  this  general  interpretation  of  the 
passages  are  De  Wette,  Alford,  Plumptre,  Farrar,  Cook,  Reuss,  Huther, 
Weiss,  Lechler,  Pfleiderer,  Beyschlag,  and  Holtzmann.  A  very  clear 
and  concise  summary  of  this  view  will  be  found  in  Lechler's  Das  apos. 
u.  nachapos.  Zeitalter,  pp.  428-433. 

2  See  his  Letter  to  JEvodius,  No.  CLXIV.  in  the  Am.  ed.  of  Augustine's 
Prolegomena,  Confessions,  and  Letters. 

3 1  have  not  taken  account  of  the  theory,  widely  held  in  the  post- 
Reformation  era,  which  explained  the  passages  as  teaching  a  preaching 
in  Hades,  but  held  that  it  was  a  proclamation  of  condemnation  only. 
The  New  Testament  use  of  Krjpva-a-eLu  is  decisive  against  this  view.  The 
theories  of  Baur  and  Spitta,  to  be  noticed  presently,  resemble  the  theory 
of  a  predicatio  damnatoria. 


308  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

his  death  Christ  proclaimed  their  judgment  to  them  in 
Tartarus  (2  Pet.  ii.  4)  are  as  follows:  (a)  The  pecul- 
iar ideas  of  iii.  18-20  resemble  those  which  are  found 
in  the  references  to  sinful  angels  in  the  Book  of  Enoch. 
(5)  The  phrase  "  spirits  which  were  disobedient "  natu- 
rally implies  that  they  were  "  spirits  "  when  they  disobeyed. 
(c)  "  Spirits  "  is  not  a  natural  designation  for  the  souls  of 
departed  men,  and  "  prison "  is  nowhere  used  in  the  Bible 
as  a  name  for  Hades.  On  this  view  of  iii.  18-20  it 
is  held  that  iv.  6  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  passage  in 
question,  but  means  that  Christ  preached  during  their  life- 
time to  those  who  are  now  dead.^  To  this  explanation  it 
is  objected,  in  general,  that  it  is  supported  by  very  inade- 
quate proof.  Hebrews  xii.  23,  which  speaks  of  "the 
spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect,"  is  adduced  to  show  that 
departed  men  may  be  spoken  of  as  Trvevfjiara.  It  is  further 
urged  that  the  language  is  inapplicable  to  superhuman 
beings.  The  contrast  between  the  eight  souls  that  were 
saved  and  the  disobedient  clearly  shows  that  they  were 
spirits  of  men  who  disobeyed,  and  not  angels.  To  these 
alone  the  "  waiting  "  of  the  divine  "  longsuffering  in  the 
days  of  Noah,"  would  be  applicable. ^ 

1  To  this  view  Baur  committed  himself  in  the  Theol.  Jahrh.,  1856,  and 
Neutest.  Theol. ^  p.  291  sq.  The  theory  has  never  gained  any  general 
currency.  Gunkel,  Die  Wirkungen  d.  heil.  Geistes,  p.  50,  adopts  it. 
Spitta,  in  an  elaborate  essay  on  our  passage,  Ohristi  Predigt  an  die 
Geister.,  assents  to  it  in  part,  and  defends  the  view  that  irve^/xara  desig- 
nates fallen  angels  (Gen.  vi.  1  sq.),  but  denies  that  Christ  is  conceived  of 
as  preaching  to  them  in  Tartarus.  He  combines  his  view  of  irvevfxaTa 
(derived  from  the  Book  of  Enocli)  with  the  view  common  since  Augustine, 
which  locates  the  preaching  in  antediluvian  times,  and  thinks  the  passage 
means  that  the  preexistent  Christ,  through  the  righteous  Enoch,  "pro- 
claimed the  judgment  to  those  sinful  spirits  who  corrupted  the  earth  and 
its  inhabitants"  (p.  68).  With  Baur,  Spitta  holds  that  iv.  6  has  no  refer- 
ence to  the  subject  of  iii.  18-20,  but  refers  to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel 
to  those  who  are  now  dead  (cf.  v.  5  ^Qvres  /cat  veKpol).  Baur's  view  has 
been  fully  explained  and  illustrated  by  Professor  F.  C.  Porter  in  the 
New  Englander  for  August,  1888. 

2  So,  e.g.  Lechler,  Das  apos.  u.  nachapos.  Zeitalter,  p.  429,  and  Huther, 
Comm.,  in  loco.  Most  writers  make  no  reference  to  this  view,  evidently 
regarding  it  as  quite  fanciful.  I  find  no  allusion  to  it  in  the  treatises 
of  Bovon,  Pfleiderer,  and  Holtzmann.  Weiss  passes  it  with  the  remark 
that  "it  requires  no  refutation." 


THE   FIKST   EPISTLE    OF   PETER  309 

The  arguments  for  the  first  and  third  explanations  are 
mainly  general  and  theoretic.  The  second  alone  rests 
upon  strictly  exegetical  considerations.  It  therefore  seems 
to  me  to  have  the  balance  of  probability  in  its  favor. 
But  if  this  conclusion  be  adopted  respecting  the  general 
import  of  the  passages,  several  perplexing  questions  still 
remain,  e.g. :  Why  does  the  author  refer  specifically  to  the 
sinners  of  Noah's  time  ?  To  what  judgment  does  KpL6(oat, 
in  iv.  6,  refer  ?  How  did  the  author  conceive  of  the 
nature  and  effect  of  the  preaching  to  the  dead  ?  To  the 
first  question,  the  probable  answer  is  that  the  men  who 
are  described  in  the  Old  Testament  as  perishing  in  the 
flood  are  thought  of  as  specially  great  sinners,  and  a 
proclamation  of  the  gospel  to  them  as  a  specially  great 
illustration  of  the  redeeming  mercy  of  God.  It  is  proba- 
ble, also,  that  the  analogy  between  baptism  and  the  flood 
(y.  21),  of  which  the  author  makes  use,  was  in  his  mind 
and  carried  his  thoughts  back  to  the  days  of  Noah. 
Of  KpidoxjL  (iv.  6),  two  explanations  are  possible  :  (1)  It 
may  be  subordinate  and  parenthetical,  as  related  to  ^o)ai^ 
having  the  force  of  a  participle,  thus  :  "  In  order  that 
they,  after  the  flesh,  indeed,  judged  by  death,  may  live 
according  to  the  spirit."  For  this  view  it  is  urged  that 
KptOcoa-L  is  aorist  while  fwo-t  is  present,  and  that  the  action 
of  the  former  thus  naturally  precedes  that  of  the  latter  ; 
also  that,  on  this  view,  a-ap/CL  and  Trvevfjiarc  are  taken  in 
the  same  sense  as  in  iii.  18.  (2)  On  the  other  view,  Kpt- 
Ocdcn  is  coordinate  with  ^ooat :  Christ  preached  to  the 
dead  in  order  that  they  might  be  judged  on  the  same 
basis  and  in  the  same  manner  as  other  men,  but  live 
according  to  God  in  the  spirit.  On  this  view  it  is  much 
more  diflicult  to  explain  aap/cL,  which  must  be  taken  to 
mean  that  lower  nature  in  which  they  had  sinned.  This 
remains  a  doubtful  point.  The  only  thing  which  is  clear 
respecting  the  purpose  of  the  preaching  is  that  it  was  an 
offer  of  salvation.  It  was  done  in  order  that  those  to 
whom  it  came  "  might  live  according  to  God  in  the  spirit." 
The  words  Krjpvaaetv  and  euayyeXi^eiv  also  imply  a  preach- 
ing of  salvation.     The  scope  of  ve/cpoi,  however,  is  doubt- 


310  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

fill.  Some  would  limit  it  to  a  certain  class,  in  view  of 
iii.  18-20  and  iv.  4,  but  to  me  it  seems  probable  that  if 
any  such  limitation  had  been  in  the  author's  mind  he 
would  have  indicated  it.  Its  natural  meaning  is,  the 
dead  in  general.  No  intimation  is  given  in  the  passage 
respecting  the  effect  of  the  preaching  to  the  dead.  Nor 
has  the  author  indicated  how  he  would  correlate  this  idea 
with  other  elements  of  the  current  eschatology.  We  can 
only  say  that,  if  this  general  interpretation  be  regarded 
as  correct,  he  has  used  the  idea  to  illustrate  the  scope  of 
God's  redeeming  grace. 

Peter's  doctrine  of  the  new  life,  like  that  of  James, 
reminds  us  of  certain  words  of  Jesus.  He  has  the  idea 
of  a  new  birth  through  the  planting  of  the  "  incorruptible 
seed"  of  the  gospel  in  the  heart  (i.  23).  But  growth 
must  follow  birth.  The  readers  are  exhorted  to  desire 
that  spiritual  nourishment  whereby  they  may  grow  into 
the  full  maturity  of  the  Christian  life  (ii.  1,  2).  Those 
who  preached  the  gospel  to  them  did  so  in  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  sent  forth  from  heaven  (i.  12),  and  by 
that  Spirit  they  are  sanctified  (i.  2).  Their  baptism,  the 
initial  rite  of  the  Christian  life,  signifies  "the  request 
(directed)  towards  God  {iirepa^TrjiJLa  ek  Beov)  for  a  good 
conscience"  (iii.  21),  and  has  its  saving  significance 
"  through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ "  ;  that  is,  it 
denotes  the  new  relation  of  communion  with  the  risen 
Christ  into  which  the  Christian  is  introduced  at  his 
conversion.  Faith,  hope,  and  obedience  are  for  our 
author  the  great  qualities  of  the  Christian  life.  Faith 
is  trust  in  Christ,  and  salvation  is  the  goal  towards  which 
it  looks  (i.  8).  It  is  tested  by  "manifold  trials"  and,  if 
genuine,  will  come  out  of  them  all  the  purer,  as  gold  is 
refined  in  the  fire  (i.  7).  Hope  denotes  more  specifically 
the  attitude  of  the  Christian's  mind  to  the  future:  "Hope 
perfectly  (reXeto)?)  for  the  grace  which  is  to  be  brought 
unto  you  at  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ"  (i.  13). 
Obedience  to  Christ  is  the  law  of  the  Christian  life. 
That  law  requires  holiness,  Godlikeness,  love  (i.  14,  15, 
22).     The  Christian  must  "live  unto  righteousness"  (ii. 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE    OF   PETER  311 

24).  What  the  ideal  of  that  true  righteousness  is  Jesus 
has  shown  in  his  own  life  (ii.  23;  iii.  17,  18;  iv.  1).  Its 
essence  is  self-denying  love.  Love  must  be  the  ethical 
nature  of  God,  since  likeness  to  him  consists  in  such  forms 
and  fruits  of  love  as  compassion,  tenderness,  humility,  and 
helpfulness  (iii.  8,  9;  iv.  11).  What  is  this  but  Jesus' 
doctrine  of  true  righteousness  as  consisting  in  sonship  to 
God,  that  is,  ethical  likeness  to  him  who  blesses  all  and 
the  completion  of  which  would  be  a  perfection  in  love 
like  that  of  the  Father  in  heaven  (Mt.  v.  43-48)  ? 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  EPISTLE   OF  JUDE  AND  SECOND  PETER 

Since  there  is  an  obvious  interdependence  between 
these  two  epistles,  it  will  be  convenient  to  treat  them 
together.  Jude  is  probably  the  basis  of  2  Peter,  and  I 
shall  therefore  summarize  first  the  thoughts  of  the  shorter 
letter.  Both  epistles  are  chiefly  concerned  with  the 
denunciation  of  errors  and  corruptions  which  appear  to 
have  arisen,  in  part,  from  a  perversion  of  certain  truths 
of  the  gospel  and,  in  part,  from  the  adoption  by  their 
exponents  of  Gnostic  ideas.  The  elements  of  positive 
teaching  in  both  epistles  are  incidentally  presented  in  the 
course  of  the  polemic.  Neither  has  any  formal  logical 
structure.  It  will  therefore  be  most  natural  to  trace  the 
thought  of  each  from  the  beginning  without  reference  to 
doctrinal  divisions. 

Jude  designates  himself  as  a  bondman  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  a  brother  of  James  (y.  1).  He  was  probabl}^  a  natural 
brother  of  Jesus,  and  wishes  to  give  weight  to  his  letter 
with  his  Jewish  fellow- Christians  by  reminding  them  of 
his  relation  to  James,  the  overseer  of  the  Jerusalem  church. 
He  writes  to  the  faithful  and  steadfast  believers  (?n  2)  con- 
cerning the  salvation  in  which  he  and  they  alike  share 
(v.  3),  and  in  order  that  the  fruits  of  that  salvation  may  not 
be  hindered  by  perverse  and  false  teachings  and  practices. 
The  keynote  of  his  epistle  is  the  exhortation  to  his  readers 
to  "  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  which  was  once  for  all 
delivered  unto  the  saints  "  (v.  3).  By  "  the  faith  "  is  here 
meant,  not  primarily  doctrine,  but  the  steadfast  confidence 
of  the  Christian  considered  as  a  gift  of  God.  This  sense 
of  TTtb-Ti?  stands  midway  between  its  usual  meaning  of 
trust  and  its  later  use  to  denote  the  doctrinal  contents  of 

312 


THE   EPISTLE    OF    JUDE   AND    SECOND    PETER         313 

faith — the  truth  which  is  believed.  Intent  upon  warning 
his  readers  of  the  dangers  which  threaten  them,  he  enters 
at  once  upon  a  description  of  the  perverse  and  corrupt 
errorists  who  have  "  privily  crept "  into  the  Christian 
community,  and  who,  though  professing  the  name  of 
Christ,  are  really  denying  him  in  their  teaching  and 
life  (v.  4).  The  key  to  the  whole  description  of  these 
impious  men  is  in  the  phrase  :  "  turning  the  grace  of  our 
God  into  lasciviousness  "  (y.  4).  They  were  men  who  had 
adopted  the  maxim  :  Let  us  sin  because  we  are  not  under 
the  law,  but  under  grace  (^cf.  Rom.  vi.  1).  Tliey  had 
taken  up  the  principle  of  Paul :  "  All  things  are  lawful " 
(1  Cor.  vi.  12),  but  had  treated  it  as  an  excuse  for  license. 
They  were  libertines  who  were  defending  their  sins  under 
the  guise  of  the  Christian  "law  of  liberty." 

Jude  points  his  warning  by  reminding  his  readers  of 
the  punishment^'  which  God  in  former  times  has  visited 
upon  sin,  the  implication  being  that  similar  penalties 
await  those  who  yield  to  the  influence  of  these  godless 
men.  His  first  illustration  is  drawn  from  the  destruction  in 
the  wilderness  of  the  unfaithful  Israelites  (v.  5  ;  cf.  Num. 
xiv.  28-30).  The  second  example  is  the  punishment  of  the 
fallen  angels  whom  God  "  hath  kept  in  everlasting  bonds 
under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day"  (v.  6). 
This  illustration  is  taken  from  the  popular  traditions  of 
the  time  which  had  been  developed  on  the  basis  of  the 
description  of  the  sinful  "  sons  of  God  "  in  Gen.  vi.  1  sq. 
It  is  probable  that  the  passage  is  a  reminiscence  of  such 
descriptions  in  the  Book  of  Enoch  as  the  following  : 
"  These  are  the  angels  who  descended  to  the  earth,  and 
revealed  what  was  hidden  to  the  children  of  men  and 
seduced  the  children  of  men  into  committing  sin."  "Bind 
Azazel  hand  and  foot,  and  place  him  in  the  darkness  ; 
.  .  .  and  place  upon  him  rough  and  jagged  rocks,  and 
cover  him  with  darkness,  and  let  him  abide  there  forever, 
and  cover  his  face  that  he  may  not  see  the  light.  And  on 
the  great  day  of  judgment  he  shall  be  cast  into  the  fire."  ^ 

1  Enoch,  Ixiv.  2  ;  x.  4-6  ;  cf.  xv.  2,3;  x.  12,  13.  I  have  cited  the 
edition  of  R.  H.  Charles. 


314  THE   PRIMITIVE    APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

The  third  illustration  is  the  destruction  of  the  "  cities  of 
the  plain"  (v.  7  ;   cf.  Gen.  xix.). 

With  verse  8  begins  the  comparison  between  the  "  un- 
godly men "  and  the  great  sinners  whose  punishments 
have  been  described.  Like  the  peojDle  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah,  they  have  given  themselves  over  to  sensual 
imaginations  and  practices  and  to  a  consequent  disre- 
gard of  divine  authority.  They  "set  at  naught  domin- 
ion and  rail  at  dignities."  It  is  difficult  to  determine  the 
exact  force  of  "  dominion  "  (/cw/jtori;?)  and  "  dignities  "  or 
"  glories  "  {ho^ai^  ;  but  the  context  seems  to  require  that 
they  be  regarded  as  designating,  respectively,  the  lord- 
ship of  God  or  of  Christ  and  the  heavenly  angel-powers 
who  are  the  agents  of  the  divine  will.  The  heinousness 
of  the  contempt  for  superior  power  and  authority  which 
is  shown  by  these  antinomians  is  further  illustrated  by  a 
popular  tradition  respecting  the  action  of  Michael  the  arch- 
angel, who,  when  contending  with  Satan  for  the  possession 
of  the  body  of  Moses,  would  not  bring  even  against  him  a 
railing  judgment,  but  said,  "  The  Lord  rebuke  thee"(?;.  9). 
Origen  states  that  this  dispute  was  described  in  the  apoc- 
ryphal Ascension  or  Asswnption  of  Moses  (^' AvdXyyjrL'^ 
Mcovcreco^i).^  The  force  of  the  argument  is  :  The  arch- 
angel would  not  utter  a  scornful  and  contemptuous  judg- 
ment (/cptcTi?  /8Xao-^?;/Ata9)  against  the  evil  power,  Satan ; 
but  these  men  do  not  scruple  to  despise  even  the  divine 
powers  and  authority  :  "  These  men  blaspheme  the  things 
which  they  do  not  know,  whatever  they  are  ;  "  they  would 
as  readily  rail  at  good  beings  as  at  evil ;  "  but  the  things 
which,  like  unreasoning  animals,  they  do  in  a  natural  way 
understand" — the  things  which  they  know  only  too  well, 
their  perverted  carnal  desires  —  these  are  the  means  of 
their  destruction  (v.  10).  The  presumptuous  free-thinkers 
are  next  compared  to  Cain,  to  Balaam,  and  to  Korah,  and 
are  vividly  described  in  the  aorist  as  having  already  run 
their  evil  course  and  met  their  doom  (v.  11).     What  is  the 

1  De  Prin.  III.  ii.  1.  The  portion  of  the  Ascensio  3fosis  which  was 
found  in  an  old  Latin  version  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan,  and 
published  in  1861,  did  not  contain  the  description  in  question. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JUDE   AND    SECOND   PETER         315 

point  of  these  comparisons  ?  They  "  went  in  the  way  of 
Cain,"  either  because  they  were  guilty  of  murderous  hate 
(Gen.  iv.  5  sq.),  or  because  Cain  was  regarded  in  the 
later  Judaism  as  the  type  of  scepticism  respecting  spiritual 
and  divine  things  (v.  10  a~).  "They  plunged  into  the 
error  of  Balaam  for  reward"  (Num.  xxxi.);  they  disre- 
garded the  requirements  of  God  and  sought  to  lead  others 
into  disregard  of  them  for  the  "  reward  "  of  sensuous  in- 
dulgence (v.  10  6).  They  have  imitated  Korah  (Num. 
xvi.)  in  their  proud  contempt  for  all  authority  (v.  8). 

After  these  historical  comparisons  a  new  set  of  figures 
(y.  12  s^.)  is  introduced  to  further  describe  the  libertines. 
"They  are  crTnXdSe^  in  your  love-feasts  "  (tcfydirat).  This 
word  can  mean  either  "  rocks  "  or  "  spots."  In  the  former 
case,  the  statement  means  that  the  errorists  are  like  hidden 
rocks  on  which  the  love-feasts  are  wrecked  (so  R.  V.) ;  in 
the  latter,  it  means  that  the  love-feasts  are  defiled  by  their 
presence  (R.  V.,  marg.).  The  use  in  2  Pet.  ii.  13  of 
a-irlXoL  (sometimes  accented  <nrC\oL)  in  conjunction  with 
fico/jLOL  ("blemishes"),  as  well  as  the  context,  shows  that 
the  writer  of  that  epistle  has  taken  o-TnXdSe^  in  this  latter 
sense.  The  libertines  are  further  described  as  boldly 
aiming  to  derive  selfish  advantage  from  their  influence 
among  the  faithful,  like  false  shepherds  seeking  their  own 
indulgence,  and  not  the  welfare  of  those  whom  they  can 
lead.  They  are  "waterless  clouds,  driven  along  by  winds," 
that  is,  they  are  empty ;  no  good  comes  from  them.  They 
are  like  trees  in  autumn,  which  are  not  only  without  fruit, 
but  are  also  doubly  dead  and  plucked  up  by  the  roots, 
that  is,  they  are  utterly  and  hopelessly  barren  of  any  spir- 
itual fruit  (v.  12).  They  are  like  the  sea  in  violent  agita- 
tion such  is  the  restless  surging  of  their  evil  passions.  They 
are  like  meteors,  which  flash  out  brightly  for  a  little  and 
then  disappear  in  eternal  darkness  (v.  13).  Thus  does  our 
author  draw  upon  common  life  and  upon  nature  for  im- 
agery by  which  to  picture  the  wickedness  and  destiny  of 
these  men.  He  closes  the  indictment  by  applying  to  them 
a  passage  from  tlie  Book  of  Enoch,  whicli,  as  in  the  poj)u- 
lar  speech  of  the  time,  is  cited  as  containing  the  words  of 


316 


THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 


Enoch  himself  (y.  14).     The  passage  and  its  original  are  as 
follows  : 


Book  of  Enoch 

And  lo  I  He  comes  with 
ten  thousands  of  (his)  holy 
ones  to  execute  judgment 
upon  them,  and  he  will  de- 
stroy the  ungodly,  and  will 
convict  all  flesh  of  all  that 
the  sinners  and  ungodly 
have  wrought  and  ungodly 
committed  against  him.i 


Revised  Version 

And  to  these  also  Enoch, 
the  seventh  from  Adam, 
prophesied,  saying.  Behold, 
the  Lord  came  with  ten 
thousands  of  his  holy  ones, 
to  execute  judgement  upon 
all,  and  to  convict  all  the 
ungodly  of  all  their  works 
of  ungodliness  which  they 
have  ungodly  wrought,  and 
of  all  the  hard  things  which 
ungodly  sinners  have  spoken 
against  him  (^vv.  14,  15). 

"  These  are  complainers,  finding  fault  with  fate,"  adds 
the  writer,  "  walking  according  to  their  own  lusts  (and 
their  mouth  speaks  swelling  words),  admiring  persons  for 
the  sake  of  their  own  advantage  '  (t;.  16)  ;  they  are  fault- 
finding pessimists,  sensuous  and  arrogant  flatterers,  whose 
favor  is  onl}^  a  cloak  for  their  selfishness. 

Over  against  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  the  antinomi- 
ans,  the  author  places  "  the  words  which  have  been  spoken 
before  by  the  apostles  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  "(t?.  17). 
These  men  are  but  fulfilling  the  prophecies  uttered  by  the 
apostles,  that  in  the  last  days  ungodly  and  wicked  men 
should  appear  and  seek  to  lead  the  faithful  astray  (y.  18). 
Passages  like  Paul's  description  of  the  "  man  of  sin  "  and 
the  "  mystery  of  lawlessness  "  (2  Thess.  ii.  1-12),  or  words 
of  some  apostle  resembling  those  wliich  are  found  in  Acts 
XX.  29 ;  1  Tim.  iv.  1 ;  2  Tim.  iii.  2,  may  have  been  in  the 
writer's  mind.     And  now  he  gives  a  final  touch  to  the 

1  Charles's  ed.  i,  9  ;  c/.  v.  4  ;  xxvii.  2.  We  have  no  means  of  compar- 
ing the  Greek  text  of  the  passage  with  its  original  in  detail,  since  the  part 
of  the  Book  of  Enoch  from  which  it  is  taken  exists  only  in  an  Ethiopic 
version. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF    JUDE  AND    SECOND   PETER         317 

dark  picture  of  tlie  impious  men.  They  make  separa- 
tions, or  separate  themselves,  by  assuming  a  knowledge 
superior  to  that  possessed  by  others;  they  are  "psychi- 
cal," not  having  the  Holy  Spirit;  they  are  given  up  to 
the  unrestrained  power  of  the  lower  nature  (y.  19).  The 
author  then  exhorts  his  readers  to  build  themselves  upon 
their  most  holy  faith,  that  is,  to  make  their  confidence  in 
Christ  and  his  truth  their  secure  foundation.  Here  we 
note  a  semi-objective  use  of  Trto-ri?  similar  to  that  found 
in  verse  3.  He  further  counsels  the  duty  of  prayer,  of  culti- 
vating a  sense  of  the  love  of  God  to  them  and  of  hoping 
in  the  mercy  of  Christ,  to  be  shown  in  the  bestowment 
of  eternal  life  at  the  approaching  judgment  (vv.  20,  21). 
One  point  remains ;  How  are  the  faithful  to  treat  those 
who  have  fallen  under  the  baleful  influence  of  the  error- 
ists?  The  author  distinguishes  three  classes  of  such  per- 
sons, according  to  the  degree  to  which  they  have  been 
corrupted,  and  indicates  the  proper  treatment  of  each 
(yv.  22,  23).  (a)  Those  who  are  perplexed  and  wavering 
are  to  be  treated  with  special  consideration  and  tender- 
ness.i  (5)  Others,  who  have  gone  further  in  error  and 
sin,  should  be  snatched  by  eager  efforts  as  brands  from 
the  burning.  (<?)  A  third  class  is  composed  of  those  who 
have  already  plunged  deep  into  corruption,  and  whose 
lives  excite  loathing.  Yet  even  towards  these  a  merciful 
feeling  must  be  cherished,  though  it  must  be  accompanied 
by  alarm  at  their  seemingly  hopeless  situation.  The  epis- 
tle closes  with  an  elaborate  doxology,  which  attributes  to 
God  the  power  to  keep  the  readers  from  the  frightful  cor- 
ruptions which  have  been  described.  God  is  their  Saviour 
through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  the  author  ascribes  "  glory, 
majesty,  dominion,  and  power  "  in  all  past  time,  now,  and 
forever  (^vv.  24,  25). 

The  theological  contents  of  the  epistle  may  be  expressed 
in  few  words.     There  is  one  God  and  Father  (^v.  1)  who 

1 1  follow  here  the  reading  iXeare  (R.V. ;  W.  and  H.),  instead  of  eX^7- 
xere  (Tisch.).  On  the  latter  reading  the  phrase  would  probably  mean  : 
"Confute  them  when  they  dispute  with  you."  This  reading  makes  a 
less  natural  climax. 


318  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

saves  through  Jesus  Christ  (v.  25),  the  lordship  of  whom 
is  the  principal  doctrinal  assumption  of  the  letter  (yv.  1,  4, 
21,  25).  Faith  is  one  of  the  gifts  of  God's  grace,  and  is 
the  basis  on  which  the  Christian  character  is  to  be  built 
(v.  20),  and  is  "  most  holy  "  because  its  possession  implies 
the  consecration  of  the  soul  to  God  (yv.  3,  4,  20).  The 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  divine  principle  of  the  Christian  life 
(yv.  19,  21).  Christians  must  be  holy  and  blameless,  free 
from  the  sins  which  are  denounced  (vv.  3,  24).  Christ  is 
to  be  the  judge  of  men,  and  the  believer  hopes  for  the 
gift  of  his  iiercy,  eternal  life,  at  the  last  day  (v.  21). 
Here  are  certainly  the  elements  of  the  apostolic  theology. 
We  note  here,  briefly  expressed,  the  principles  of  grace 
and  faith  ;  of  salvation  through  Christ  and  by  the  aid  of 
the  Spirit ;  of  a  holy  Christian  life,  and  of  the  hope  of 
salvation  to  be  realized  at  the  day  of  judgment. 

Like  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  2  Peter  was  written  to  warn 
the  readers  against  error.  The  author  evidently  regarded 
the  language  of  Jude  as  adapted  to  furnish  a  correct 
description  of  the  false  teachers  whom  he  wishes  to  de- 
scribe ;  he  accordingly  paraphrases  it  and  adopts  it,  in 
substance,  for  his  own  use.  The  epistle  is  not,  however, 
a  mere  reproduction  of  Jude.  It  is  introduced  by  a 
description  of  the  Christian  salvation  in  which  Chris- 
tianity is  strikingly  pictured  as  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy 
(ch.  i.).  Then  follows  the  picture  of  the  errorists, 
painted  in  colors  taken  from  the  Epistle  of  Jude  (ch.  ii.)  ; 
and  in  ch.  iii.  the  author  traces  the  error  in  question  in  its 
bearings  upon  the  hope  of  the  parousia,  and  meets  it  by  a 
counter  argument.  Unlike  1  Peter  the  key-word  here  is 
not  hope,  but  knowledge  (yvco(7L<i ;  iinyvcoo-Lf;,  i.  3,  8; 
ii.  20).  There  is  no  reference,  as  in  1  Peter,  to  the  con- 
nection between  suffering  and  glory.  The  thought  of  the 
eternal  kingdom,  to  be  ushered  in  at  the  second  advent, 
is  prominent  (i.  11,  16;  iii.  13).  Accordingly,  Chris- 
tianity is  contemplated  as  prophecy  which  will  be  realized 
at  the  parousia  (i.  16-21).  Redemption  through  Christ 
is  but  once  alluded  to,  in  ii.  1,  where  the  false  teachers 
are  said  to  "deny  the  Master  that  bought  them." 


THE   EPISTLE    OF   JUDE  AND    SECOND   PETER         3l9 

The  author  writes  in  the  name  of  the  apostle  Peter,  and 
seems  to  be  addressing  some  circle  of  Jewish-Christian 
readers  in  the  Diaspora  as  those  who  have  obtained  the 
same  faith  in  Christ  which  the  primitive  apostles  and 
Jewish-Christians  possess.  This  common  faith  they  now 
have  "  in  the  risfhteonsness  of  God  and  the  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,"  that  is,  because  God  has  through  Christ  put  Jews 
and  Gentiles  upon  a  plane  of  equality  (i.  1).  He  then 
wishes  his  readers  an  increased  knowledge  of  God  and  of 
Jesus  the  Lord  (i.  2).  It  is  seen  that  this  knowledge  is  a 
practical,  religious  knowledge,  including  "  all  things  that 
pertain  to  life  and  godliness."  It  is  a  knowledge  which 
involves  fellowship  with  God  who  calls  men  "  through 
his  own  glory  and  virtue "  (apeTrj^  of.  1  Pet.  ii.  9)  — 
whose  perfections  constitute  the  ideal  of  the  Christian  life, 
and  are  a  perpetual  challenge  to  a  holy  endeavor  (i.  3). 
In  accordance  with  these  perfections  God  has  given  his 
"precious  and  exceeding  great  promises,"  whose  realiza- 
tion should  be  a  sharing  of  the  divine  life  and  a  conse- 
quent escape  from  the  sinful  corruption  of  the  world 
(i.  4).  Then  follows  a  list  of  Christian  virtues  which  are 
to  be  blended  with  that  trust  in  Christ  which  is  the 
foundation  of  the  Christian  life.  In  faith  the  element  of 
moral  courage  or  energy  (aperrj)  must  not  be  wanting. 
And,  in  turn,  this  quality  needs  knowledge  to  guide  its 
action.  But  knoAvledge  will  not  be  wise  unless  there 
be  associated  with  it  self-control.  To  such  self-control 
patient  endurance  (yiroixovrj)  is  needful,  while  with  this 
must  be  blended  reverence,  or  piety,  which  gives  to  all 
moral  efforts  their  highest  worth.  With  piety  must 
mingle  love  to  one's  fellow-Christians,  and  with  this,  in 
turn,  love  to  all  without  distinction  (i.  5-7).  We  are 
not  to  seek  in  these  verses  any  subtle  psychological 
analysis  of  the  development  of  the  various  virtues,  but  a 
practical  presentation  of  the  manysidedness  of  the  Chris- 
tian life.  Those  who  cultivate  these  virtues  will  abound 
in  the  true  knowledge  of  Christ  (i.  8).  Those  who  do 
not  will  fail  in  moral  discernment,  and  will  lapse  back 
into  the  old  sinful  life  (i.  9).     In  view  of  this  danger  the 


320  THE  PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

readers  are  exhorted  to  diligent  effort  to  "make  their 
calling  and  election  sure."  To  this  higher  life  they  have 
been  called  ;  but  it  rests  with  them  whether  they  will 
be  faithful  to  its  demands.  They  may  stumble  and  fall 
short  of  it,  but  if  they  cultivate  the  virtues  in  question 
they  will  secure  the  coveted  salvation  and  enter  (at  the 
parousia)  the  eternal  Kingdom.  It  is  noticeable  that 
salvation  here  includes  both  a  present  knowledge  of  God 
and  of  Christ  and  a  corresponding  holy  life,  and  a  future 
consummation  at  the  Lord's  coming.  "  Calling  and  elec- 
tion" here  denote,  respectively,  the  offer  of  salvation 
through  Christ  and  acceptance  into  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
But  these  blessings  may  be  forfeited  by  disobedience,  or, 
"  made  more  sure,"  by  striving  after  Christian  virtue. 

Against  the  loss  of  the  heavenly  good  the  author  sol- 
emnly warns  his  readers  —  the  more  so  since  he  is  living 
in  the  near  prospect  of  death.  But  he  hopes  that  after 
his  decease  his  readers  will  recall  his  warnings  and  en- 
couragements (i.  12-15).  For,  he  continues,  we  were  not 
following  myths  invented  by  human  fancy  (perhaps  an 
allusion  to  the  current  vagaries  rife  at  the  time)  when 
we  assured  you  that  the  Lord  would  come  in  power  and 
glory.  The  glory  of  the  transfiguration  is  a  pledge 
and  prophecy  of  the  greater  glory  to  be  revealed  at  the 
advent  (i.  16-18).  He  appeals  also  to  the  Messianic 
visions  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets.  They  illumine 
the  present  darkness  with  hope,  and  encourage  us  to  ex- 
pect the  dawning  of  the  Messianic  day.  And  this  confi- 
dence is  not  misplaced,  because  prophecy  is  not  merely  a 
subjective  production  or  interpretation  of  the  prophet's 
own,  but  is  the  product  of  the  divine  inspiration  (i.  19-21). 

There  are  several  difficult  points  of  exegesis  in  this 
passage.  I  can  notice  only  one  of  them  :  What  is  the 
meaning  of  the  statement  that  "  no  prophecy  of  Scripture 
is  of  private  interpretation"  (tSta?  eViXvo-eo)?)  ?  Opinion 
is  divided  on  the  question  whether  eViXfo-i?  here  means 
"dissolution"  or  "interpretation."  Spitta  elaborately 
defends  the  former  meaning,^  and  renders :  "No  prophecy 

^  Der  zweite  Brief  des  Petnis,  u.  s.  w.,  in  loco. 


THE   EPISTLE    OF   JUDE  AND    SECOND   PETER         321 

of  Scripture  is  of  such  a  kind  that  it  can  be  destroyed  " 
(^ef.  KaraXvcrai^  Mt.  v.  17;  ov  SvvaraL  \vO7jvat,  y  jpacj^ri, 
Jn.  X.  35).  Most  interpreters  adopt  the  other  meaning, 
in  better  accord  with  the  context.     The  divine  meaning 

o 

of  prophecy  is  the  prominent  thought ;  man  cannot  fully 
apprehend  or  explain  it.  But  does  t'Sta?  refer  (a)  to  the 
prophecies,  or  (5)  to  those  to  whom  they  are  addressed, 
or  (c)  to  the  prophets  ?  On  the  first  view  («)  the  mean- 
ing would  be  that  no  prophecy  yields  its  own  explana- 
tion ;  only  future  experience  makes  its  meaning  clear  ;  it 
receives  its  interpretation  when  its  fulfilment  comes. ^  On 
the  second  view  (5)  the  statement  would  mean  that  only 
the  Holy  Spirit  who  inspired  tlie  prophecies  can  enable 
those  to  wJiom  they  come  to  understand  them  ;  only  God 
who  inspires  prophecy  can  give  its  explanation. ^  But  if 
((?)  IBta^  eTTiXvaeco^  means  the  prophet's  own  explanation, 
then  the  passage  would  present  a  thought  kindred  to  that 
of  1  Pet.  1.  10-12,  namely,  that  the  prophet  did  not  fully 
appreciate  the  import  of  his  own  sayings.  I  think  this 
is  the  correct  explanation,  and  tliat  the  saying  means  that 
no  prophecy  is  a  matter  of  the  prophet's  own  interpreta- 
tion of  the  facts  with  which  he  is  dealing,  but  that,  on 
the  contrary,  his  insight  is  divinely  given. ^  This  expla- 
nation seems  most  congruous  with  verse  21,  which  gives 
the  reason  for  saying  that  no  prophecy  is  of  private  inter- 
pretation, namely,  that  prophecy  is  not  produced  by  a 
man's  (that  is,  the  prophet's)  own  will,  but  is  uttered  in 
the  power  of  the  Spirit :  "  Men  spake  from  God,  being 
borne  along  (impelled  thereto,  <f>ep6[xevoL)  by  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

This  description  of  the  true  knowledge  of  God  and  of 
Christ,  which  was  foreshadowed  in  prophecy  and  attested 
by  the  life  of  Jesus,  is  intended  as  introductory  to  the 
arraignment  of  the  false  gnosis  which  is  described  in  chap- 
ter ii.  in  language  largely  borrowed  and  adapted  from  Jude. 
In  our  epistle  the  errorists  appear  as  false  teachers  who  deny 

1  So,  e.g.  Holtzmann,  Weiss. 

2  So,  e.g.  Luther,  Grimm-Thayer  Lex.,  von  Soden. 

3  So  Ilutlier,  Dwight,  and  Pluinptre. 

Y 


322  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC   TEACHING 

Christ  not  merely  (as  in  Jude)  by  an  immoral  life,  but  by 
bringing  in  "destructive  heresies."  They  are  pernicious 
in  teaching  and  life,  and  acquire  influence  over  unsus- 
pecting believers  only  to  abuse  it  for  their  evil  ends.  But 
their  judgment  is  at  hand  (ii.  1-3).  The  author  omits 
Jude's  illustration  from  the  punishment  of  the  unbelieving 
by  death  in  the  wilderness,  and  appropriates  the  examples 
of  the  evil  angels  (ii.  4),  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  (ii.  6-8), 
and  of  Balaam  (ii.  15,  16).  These  are  adduced  in  the 
same  order  as  in  Jude  ;  but  after  the  first  example  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  ungodly  by  the  flood  (not  in  Jude)  is  cited 
(in  apparent  allusion  to  1  Pet.  iii.  20).  The  description 
given  in  Jude  of  the  wickedness  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
is  considerably  amplified,  and  Lot  is  introduced  as  vexing 
his  righteous  soul  over  the  sins  of  their  inhabitants.  He 
then  resumes  the  descri^jtion  of  the  presumptuous  irrever- 
ence of  the  libertines  in  "  railing  at  dignities  "  (Sofat)  and 
"  despising  dominion  "  (/cu/otorT;?).  By  So^ai  2  Peter  quite 
certainly  designates  evil  beings.  In  Jude  the  word  seems 
to  denote  good  angel-powers.  He  says  that  even  (good) 
angels,  although  they  are  greater  than  men,  and  might, 
with  less  presumption,  do  so,  do  not  bring  a  contemptu- 
ous judgment  against  these  principalities  (ii.  11).  Our 
author  omits  the  concrete  example  of  Michael  refraining 
from  bringing  against  Satan  a  railing  judgment  when  con- 
tending with  him  about  the  body  of  Moses.  From  verse  12 
the  description  of  Jude  is  again  more  closely  followed. 
The  free-thinkers  are  "  creatures  without  reason,"  blindly 
following  their  evil  instincts.  Omitting  the  comparison 
with  Cain,  the  writer  describes  them,  as  Jude  had  done, 
as  ''-  following  the  way  of  Balaam  "  for  selfish  advantage. 
This  illustration  is  amplified  (ii.  15, 16),  and  the  following 
reference  to  Korah  is  omitted.  The  most  striking  passage 
in  Jude  (^vv.  12,13)  is  now  appropriated  in  a  weakened  form 
by  our  author  (ii.  17).  One  of  its  elements  —  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  libertines  as  defiling  the  love-feasts  —  had 
already  been  employed  (ii.  13).  The  prophecy  of  judg- 
ment from  the  Book  of  Enoch  is  omitted,  and  the  descrip- 
tion   ends   with   a   free   jDaraphrase    (ii.    18,  19)   of   the 


THE   EPISTLE    OF   JUDE   AND    SECOND   PETER         323 

concluding  words  of  Jude's  description  (vv.  15,  16)  to 
which  our  author  appends  the  conclusion  that  their  last 
state  has  become  worse  than  their  first  (ii.  20-22). 

The  writer  then  echoes  the  reminder  of  Jude  (vv.  17, 18) 
that  the  apostles  had  warned  them  that  "  in  the  last  days 
mockers  should  come  with  mockery,  walking  after  their 
own  lusts  "  (iii.  2,  3) ;  but  he  amplifies  this  apostolic  warn- 
ing by  extending  the  import  of  it  as  given  in  Jude.  Our 
author  says  that  the  holy  prophets  and  apostles  represented 
the  mockers  as  doubting  the  second  advent  and  contemptu- 
ously sa3dng  :  "  Where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming  ?  " 
These  sceptics  have  now  appeared  in  the  apostates  who 
have  been  described.  This  connection  between  the  errors 
and  sins  of  the  false  teachers  and  the  denial  of  the  parousia 
is,  as  we  have  seen,  a  distinctive  feature  of  2  Peter  as  com- 
pared with  Jude,  and  a  point  of  special  interest  in  itself 
considered.  Their  argument  was  that,  since  the  death  of 
"  the  fathers,"  that  is,  the  first  generation  of  Christians, 
the  world  had  continued  the  same  as  it  had  been  from  the 
creation,  and  that  no  catastrophe  seemed  likely  to  occur 
in  the  future  (iii.  4).  This  consideration  the  writer  meets 
by  pointing  to  the  flood,  by  which  "  the  world  that  then 
was,  being  overflowed  with  water,  perished"  (iii.  5,  6). 
He  argues  that  a  like  destruction,  only  by  fire  instead  of 
water,  awaits  the  present  world  (iii.  7).  He  offers  a 
second  argument  against  the  doubters.  Although  the 
parousia  seems  long  delayed,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
the  Lord  does  not  count  time  as  men  do.  A  period  which 
seems  to  us  long  is  not  so  to  him.  Moreover,  he  may  be 
delaying  the  final  crisis  in  order  to  give  the  greater  oppor- 
tunity for  repentance  (iii,  8,  9).  But,  whenever  the  day 
of  the  Lord  comes,  it  will  come  suddenly  ;  then  this  present 
world  shall  be  destroyed  by  fire,  and  from  the  wreck  shall 
emerge  "  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  in  which  dwelleth 
righteousness"  (iii.  10-13). 

In  view  of  this  impending  judgment  and  destruction, 
the  author  exJiorts  his  readers  to  pure  and  holy  living  and 
to  a  patient  endurance  of  suffering  (iii.  14,  15).  This 
exhortation  he  enforces  by  appeal  to  the  instructions  given 


324  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTOLIC    TEACHING 

by  Paul  in  his  epistles  which  he  ranks  with  the  sacred 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  he  intimates 
that  these  writings  of  Paul,  in  which  he  insists  so 
strongly  upon  a  holy  life,  have  been  treated  by  the  false 
teachers  as  furnishing  an  encouragement  to  license  (iii. 
16).  Here  we  find  the  key  to  the  libertinism  in  question. 
It  was,  at  least  in  part,  a  perverted  and  degenerate  Paul- 
inism  in  which  Paul's  doctrine  of  grace  and  freedom  was 
transformed  into  a  justification  of  sinful  indulgence.  The 
errorists  had  drawn  from  Paul's  doctrine  the  conclusion 
against  which  he  had  protested,  namely  :  Let  us  sin  be- 
cause we  are  not  under  law,  but  under  grace  (Rom.  vi. 
15-23).  Against  this  perversion  the  readers  are  again 
warned  and  counselled  to  avoid  "  the  error  of  the  wicked  " 
and  to  grow  in  the  grace  and  knowledge  of  Christ  (iii. 
17, 18). 


PART   IV 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  PAUL 
CHAPTER   I 

INTRODUCTORY 

In  the  study  of  Paul's  teaching  Ave  have  the  advantage 
of  a  good  degree  of  agreement  among  critics  respecting 
the  sources.  The  view  of  F.  C.  Baur,  which  admitted  the 
genuineness  of  the  four  great  doctrinal  letters  only,  has 
been  greatly  modified  by  more  recent  scholarship.  The 
radical  criticism  of  a  Dutch  school  and  of  Steck,  which 
denies  that  we  possess  any  genuine  epistles  of  Paul,  has 
met  with  no  favor  among  German  scholars,  and  has  found 
some  of  its  most  energetic  opponents  among  the  more 
radical  German  critics.  Starting  with  the  genuineness 
of  the  four  Hauptbriefe,  criticism  has  steadily  advanced  in 
the  recognition  of  the  other  Paulines  until  now  only  the 
Pastorals  are  subject  to  widespread  and  serious  doubt. 
A  few  illustrations  of  this  tendency  may  here  be  adduced. 
Hilgenfeld  who,  in  general,  was  an  ardent  adherent  of  the 
Tiibingen  school,  admitted  the  genuineness  of  1  Thessalo- 
nians,  Philippians,  and  Philemon.  Strong  objection  has 
sometimes  been  made  to  2  Thessalonians,  but  its  genu- 
ineness is  maintained  without  qualification  by  Klopper 
and  Jiilicher.  Pfleiderer  maintains  the  genuineness  of 
1  Thessalonians  and  Philippians,  regards  the  evidence  as 
nearly  balanced  in  the  case  of  Colossians  and  Philemon, 
as  preponderating  against  2  Thessalonians  and  Ephesians, 
and  as  decisive  against  the  Pastorals.  M^negoz  expresses 
doubts  about  1  and  2  Thessalonians,  but  is  confident  of  the 

325 


326  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   PAUL 

genuineness  of  Colossians,  Philemon,  Epliesians,  and  Phil- 
ippians.  He  thinks  that  the  Pastorals  are  in  the  main 
genuine,  but  that  they  have  been  interpolated  by  copyists. 
Holtzmann  says  that  Paul's  theology  may  be  derived  with 
confidence  from  1  Thessalonians,  Galatians,  Corinthians, 
Romans,  Philippians,  and,  in  a  measure  also,  from  2  Thes- 
salonians and  Colossians,  and  that  elements  of  Pauline 
doctrine  ma}  be  found  even  in  Epliesians.  While  some 
critics  thus  continue  to  express  doubt  about  Colossians 
and  Epliesians,  von  Soden  and  Jiilicher  declare  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  former,  and  Jiilicher  admits  that  the 
genuineness  of  the  latter  is  not  disproved.  Harnack  main- 
tains the  genuineness  of  1  and  2  Thessalonians,  Philip- 
pians, Colossians,  and  Philemon  (besides  the  Haupthi^iefe)^ 
and  expresses  himself  favorably  in  regard  to  Ephesians^ 
He  holds  that  even  the  Pastorals  are,  in  part,  Pauline, 
and  that  a  large  portion  of  2  Timothy  and  nearly  a  third 
of  Titus  are  composed  of  genuine  fragments.  In  1  Timo- 
thy there  are  Pauline  elements,  although  no  single  passage 
can  be  pronounced  genuine  as  it  stands. ^ 

The  present  state  of  criticism  is  reassuring  to  the 
Biblical  theologian.  In  any  case  he  will  derive  his 
material   for  the   construction    of   the    Pauline   theology 

1  Respecting  Epliesians  Harnack  says:  "If  one  is  convinced  of  tlie 
genuineness  of  Colossians,  a  great  part  of  the  objection  to  the  genuineness 
of  Ephesians  thereby  falls  away.  AVhoever  can  ascribe  Galatians  and 
Colossians  to  the  same  author,  can  with  little  difficulty  believe  that  the 
author  of  Colossians  is  the  same  with  the  writer  of  Ephesians,  which,  in 
that  case,  would  be  of  even  date  with  Colossians.  The  principal  difficul- 
ties lie  in  certain  passages,  viz.:  iv.  11;  ii.  20;  iii.  5."    Chronologie,  p.  239 

2  I  have  purposely  cited  the  opinions  of  representatives  of  the  radical 
school.  More  conservative  German  scholars,  and  English  scholars  gener- 
ally, hold  to  the  genuineness  of  the  first  ten  Paulines,  and  most  of  them 
regard  the  Pastorals  also  as  genuine.  For  a  fuller  exhibit  of  modern  crit- 
ical opinion  see  the  Introductions  of  Weiss,  Holtzmann,  and  Jiilicher,  and 
the  Chronologie  of  Harnack.  The  present  state  of  criticism  respecting 
the  Paulines  is  described  in  an  article  by  Weiss  in  the  American  Journal 
of  Theology  for  April,  1897.  He  confidently  defends  the  genuineness  of 
all  the  epistles,  except  the  Pastorals,  with  regard  to  which  he  expresses 
himself  guardedly.  Though  favorable  to  the  view  that  they  are  genuine, 
he  rests  in  a  non  liquet.  Many  of  the  objections  are  held  to  be  invalid  ; 
the  spuriousness  of  the  epistles  is  regarded  as  unproved.  Zahn  in  his 
Einleitung  defends  the  genuineness  of  all  the  Paulines. 


INTRODUCTORY  327 

mainly  from  the  four  great  doctrinal  letters.  If  he  may 
also  feel  assured  of  the  genuineness  of  the  epistles  to 
the  Thessalonians  and  Philippians,  and  of  the  Pauline 
basis  (to  claim  nothing  more)  of  Colossians  and  Ephe- 
sians,  he  may  go  forward  in  his  work  with  little  embar- 
rassment from  the  side  of  criticism.  The  pastoral  letters 
are  quite  special  and  practical  in  their  character  and  aim, 
and  their  subtraction  from  the  list  of  Paulines  would  in 
no  way  impair  the  completeness  of  the  apostle's  doctrinal 
system.  Our  use  of  these  epistles  will  be  incidental,  and 
no  conclusion  respecting  Paul's  doctrine  will  be  based 
upon  them,  which  is  not  sustained  by  passages  from  some 
one  of  the  other  ten  letters  whose  genuineness  I  believe 
I  am  justified  in  assuming.  I  shall  also  make  use  of  the 
Pauline  discourses  in  Acts  as  secondary  sources.  They 
are  not  to  be  regarded  as  verbal  reports,  but  as  sketches. 
They  preserve  the  substance  of  the  apostle's  thoughts  as 
he  presented  them  to  unbelieving  Jews  and  Gentiles,  but 
are  neither,  on  the  one  hand,  precise  reproductions  of  his 
very  words,  nor,  on  the  otiier,  inventions  of  the  author  of 
the  Acts. 

The  theology  of  Paul  cannot  be  well  understood  apart 
from  his  personality  and  history.  The  vigor  and  inten- 
sity of  his  mind  fitted  him,  in  a  high  degree,  to  fuse  the 
contents  of  Christian  belief  into  a  reasoned  system  of 
doctrine.  He  was  a  deeply  religious  man  by  nature  and 
by  education.  From  his  youth  he  had  been  an  ardent 
devotee  of  religion  as  he  understood  it.  He  clearly 
defined  his  convictions  and  carried  them  out  consistently 
in  action.  It  was  not  strange  that  he  became  a  perse- 
cutor of  tlie  Christians.  He  considered  their  beliefs  false 
and  dangerous.  Their  Messiah  he  held  to  be  a  pretender, 
who  did  not  in  the  least  correspond  to  the  cherished  Mes- 
sianic ideal  of  the  nation.  Faith  in  him  was  loosing  the 
bonds  of  attachment  to  the  law,  weakening  the  power  of 
the  cultus,  and  dimming  the  bright  hopes  of  Israel's 
future  power  and  glory.  Here  certainly  was  reason 
enough  why  a  zealous  and  consistent  Pharisee  should 
hate  the  new  sect  and  try  to  exterminate  it. 


328  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

By  what  process  was  this  fiery  persecutor  transformed 
into  the  Christian  aj^ostle  ?  Saul  was  not  an  ordinary 
Pharisee.  Religion  for  him  did  not  consist  chiefly  in  out- 
ward observances.  His  was  a  deep  moral  nature.  For 
him  the  law  of  God  demanded  holiness.  Righteousness 
—  conformity  in  heart  and  life  to  the  divine  will — was 
his  ideal.  How  could  he  ever  realize  this  ideal?  He 
knew  of  but  one  answer  :  He  must  scrupulously  perform 
all  the  requirements  of  the  law ;  he  must  keep  every 
commandment.  But  when  he  looked  into  the  depths  of 
his  own  heart  he  saw  that  he  was  not  doing  that.  He 
strove  the  harder,  but  without  success.  What  was  hin- 
dering him  ?  The  power  of  indwelling  sin.  He  found 
himself  weak  and  helpless.  He  saw  the  ideal,  but  was 
powerless  to  achieve  it.  A  perpetual  struggle  raged 
within  him  between  his  conscience,  which  showed  him 
what  he  ought  to  do,  and  the  power  of  sin,  which  pre- 
vented him  from  doing  it.  He  has  depicted  this  conflict, 
in  his  pre-Christian  life,  in  Rom.  vii.  7-25. 

We  may  see  in  this  inner  struggle  an  indirect  prepara- 
tion of  his  heart  for  the  acceptance  of  the  gospel.  It  had 
taught  him  his  own  weakness  and  insufficiency.  While 
there  is  no  evidence  that  this  conflict  led  him  to  doubt 
that  obedience  to  the  law  was  the  one  Avay  of  salvation, 
it  is  certain  that  it  was  driving  him  to  despair  respecting 
the  success  of  his  own  efforts.  His  doubt  with  reofard  to 
his  own  earnest  and  honest  strivings  after  peace  with 
God  by  doing  the  deeds  of  the  law,  was  certainly  capable 
of  developing  into  a  doubt  whether  any  one  could  attain 
salvation  by  that  path.  But  the  thought,  no  salvation  by 
law,  did  not  occur  to  him  daring  the  struggle  which  he 
describes.  What  he  doubted  during  this  period  was  his 
own  acceptableness  to  God,  and  it  probably  led  him  to 
redouble  his  persecuting  zeal  and  thus  to  render,  as  he 
thought,  increased  service  to  God.  The  experience  in 
question  did  not  point  him  to  Christ,  although  it  was  an 
important  pre-condition  of  his  accepting  Christ.  Through 
it  all  he  thought  of  no  means  of  salvation  but  the  law. 
His  conscious  failure  to  attain  his  ideal  was  driving  him 


INTRODUCTORY  329 

to  hopelessness,  instead  of  discovering  to  him  the  way  of 
peace. 

How,  then,  are  we  to  explain  the  crisis  that  came? 
What  was  the  turning-point  of  his  life?  The  Acts  and 
the  Epistles  agree  in  declaring  that  it  was  a  supernatural 
revelation  of  Christ  to  him.  Whether  we  are  to  regard 
the  outward  accompaniments  of  that  crisis,  as  described  in 
Acts,  as  actual  events,  or  not,  is  relatively  unimportant ; 
Paul  has  not  mentioned  them  in  his  references  to  his  con- 
version in  his  epistles.  For  his  own  mind  the  emphasis 
lay  elsewhere ;  it  lay  in  the  inner  disclosure  to  his  spirit 
of  the  glorified  Christ  as  the  true  Messiah  and  Saviour. 
This  was  to  him  a  most  certain  reality.  He  classes  it 
along  with  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  to  his  dis- 
ciples on  earth  (1  Cor.  xv.  5-8)  as  an  objective  fact.  He 
elsewhere  dwells  at  length  upon  the  ecstatic  states  of 
which  he  has  been  the  subject  (2  Cor.  xii.  1  sg.);  but  he 
gives  no  indication  that  the  revelation  of  Christ  in  him 
(Gal.  i.  16)  was  of  the  nature  of  a  vision.  The  apostle 
believed  that  a  miraculous  disclosure  of  Christ's  heavenly 
glory  formed  the  crisis  of  his  life,  and  he  had  the  best 
opportunity  of  knowing.  No  explanation  tallies  with  all 
the  facts  which  are  known  to  us  except  that  which  Paul 
himself  gives. ^  His  vain  struggle  to  keep  the  whole  law 
gave  him  a  vivid  realization  of  the  difficulties  of  the 
theory  of  salvation  by  deeds  of  legal  obedience.  But  it 
was  the  newly  found  assurance  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
which  led  him  to  the  positive  certainty  that  salvation  is 
by  grace  through  faith  in  Christ.  But  the  two  poles  of 
his  theology,  the  positive  and  the  negative,  belong  to- 
gether. They  are  the  inseparable  aspects  of  one  conclu- 
sion, which  was  not  adopted  till  Christ  was  revealed  in 
him.  His  previous  struggle  had  thus  a  deep  significance 
for  his  life.  It  gave  the  gospel  a  point  of  contact  with 
his  heart  and  conscience.     It  was  the  dark  background  on 

•1  For  the  modern  combination  of  the  vision-hj^pothesis,  and  a  psycho- 
logical explanation,  see  Holsten,  Evangelium  d.  Paulus  n.  d.  Petrus; 
Pfleiderer,  FauUidsiiias ;  and  Wtizsacker,  Das  apos.  Zeitalter.  (Of  the 
last  two  works  there  are  English  translations.) 


330  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

which  the  revelation  of  God's  grace  in  Christ  seemed  most 
bright  and  glorious. 

This  experience  exerted  a  powerful  influence  upon  his 
subsequent  thought.  It  sharpened  for  his  mind  the  con- 
trast between  the  law  and  the  gospel,  between  works  and 
faith.  He  had  tried  to  find  peace  with  God  by  doing  the 
deeds  of  the  law,  and  had  failed  ;  he  had  found  it,  at  last, 
by  simple  trust  in  God's  mercy.  Hence  grace  and  faith 
became  the  watchwords  of  his  teaching.  He  now  saw 
that  men  had  always  been  saved  by  grace  on  condition  of 
faith,  and  that,  in  view  of  human  weakness  and  sinfulness, 
they  never  can  be  saved  in  any  other  way.  The  fact  that 
sin  is  the  starting-point  of  his  dogmatic  system,  as  devel- 
oped in  Romans,  is  explained  by  his  own  experience.  A 
vivid  sense  of  his  own  sin  was  the  reverse  side  of  his 
earnest,  but  fruitless,  striving  after  conformity  to  the 
law.  As  he  contemplated  human  life  and  history,  and 
dwelt  upon  the  Old  Testament  pictures  of  human  deprav- 
ity, he  felt  that  his  own  experience  of  the  power  of  sin 
and  of  man's  inability  to  throw  off  its  dominion  was  rep- 
resentative of  a  universal  fact ;  that  all  have  fallen  short 
and  must  be  saved  by  appeal  to  God's  mercy,  that  is,  by 
faith. 

In  the  apostle's  pre-Christian  experience  and  in  his 
conversion  we  find  not  only  the  motives  of  his  theology 
but  the  incentives  to  his  missionary  activity.  As  soon  as 
he  was  converted  he  began  to  preach  Christ  (Acts  ix.  22). 
The  narrative  in  Acts  represents  his  call  to  the  apostle- 
ship  to  the  nations  as  following  directly  upon  his  conver- 
sion (xxii.  15),  and  Paul  himself  connects  his  conversion 
and  his  call  closely  together  (Gal.  i.  15).  His  career  was 
implicit  in  that  crisis  of  his  life  which  occurred  on  the 
way  to  Damascus.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  sup- 
pose that  the  full  nature  and  extent  of  his  mission  was 
clear  to  him  from  the  first.  But  he  was  from  that  event 
clearly  committed  to  Christ  and  to  the  extension  of  his 
gospel.  He  awaited  but  the  opening  of  the  door  of 
opportunity. 

Several  years   passed   before    Paul  was  able  to  enter 


INTRODUCTORY  331 

upon  the  greater  work  of  his  apostleship.  His  period 
of  solitude  in  Arabia  (Gal.  i.  17)  must  have  given  him 
a  favoring  opportunity  for  clarifying  and  maturing  his 
new  faith  and  defining  its  contents  in  contrast  to  the 
Pharisaic  theology  which  he  had  formerly  held.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  essential  elements  of  his  system  of  thought 
were  clearly  defined  in  his  mind  from  that  time  onward. 
His  own  description  (Gal.  ii.  14-21)  of  his  argument 
against  Peter's  wavering  and  unclear  views  of  the  gospel's 
relation  to  Judaism,  as  revealed  in  his  conduct  at  Antioch, 
shows  that  his  own  theology  on  that  whole  subject  was  fully 
developed  before  any  of  his  epistles  were  written.  I  have 
not  the  slightest  reluctance  to  recognize  a  development  in 
Paul's  doctrinal  system,  provided  any  evidence  of  such 
development  can  be  found.  But  I  find  no  evidence  war- 
ranting the  conclusion  that  the  apostle's  views  changed 
materially  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  public 
ministry.  They  grew  and  expanded  and  were  more 
amply  illustrated  and  applied ;  but  his  "  gospel "  was 
essentially  the  same  throughout.  We  may  note  changes 
of  emphasis,  but  no  change  of  opinion.  The  diversity  in 
the  doctrinal  contents  of  the  apostle's  letters  is  naturally 
and  sufficiently  explained  by  their  different  occasions, 
motives,  and  purposes.  ^ 

Paul's  career  opened  gradually  before  him.  After  his 
return  to  Palestine  from  Arabia  he  began  to  proclaim 
that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  Many  doubted  the  genuine- 
ness of  his  conversion,  but  Barnabas  befriended  him  and 
introduced  him  to  the  primitive  apostles.  His  life  being 
threatened  by  the  Hellenistic  Jews,  he  departed  for  his 
native  city.  Tarsus  (Acts.  ix.  26-30).  In  due  time  he 
was  summoned  by  Barnabas  to  aid  in  the  newly  estab- 
lished Gentile  mission  at  Antioch  (Acts  x.  25).  From 
Antioch  he  went  out  as  assistant  to  Barnabas  on  his  first 

1  "There  was  certainly  a  development  in  the  theological  thought  of 
Paul.  But  we  think  that  it  falls  in  an  epoch  anterior  to  his  epistles,  at 
least  before  that  to  the  Galatians."  M^n^goz,  Le  Peche  et  la  Bedemp- 
tion  cTapres  St.  Paul,  p.  7.  Per  contra,  see  Sabatier,  The  Apostle  Paul, 
who  seeks  by  psychological  analysis  to  trace  an  evolution  in  Paul's  thought 
throughout  his  life. 


332  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   PAUL 

missionary  tour  (Acts  xiii.,  xiv.).  These  were  the  days 
when  the  purpose  of  his  apostleship  to  the  nations  was 
maturing  witliin  him,  and  soon  we  behokl  him  surround- 
ing himself  with  a  corps  of  workers  and  organizing  his 
world-conquering  mission.  He  traverses  Asia  Minor, 
and  at  Troas  hears  the  call  to  enter  on  the  evangeliza- 
tion of  Europe.  He  crosses  the  Hellespont  and  carries 
the  gospel  into  the  centres  of  Greek  culture  —  to  Philippi, 
Thessalonica,  Corinth,  and  Athens  —  and  later  to  Italy 
and  Rome.  All  this  time  it  had  become  increasingly 
apparent  to  him  that  Israel,  as  a  nation,  was  certain  to 
reject  the  Christ.  His  experience  with  JcAvish  fanaticism 
and  persecution  presented  to  his  mind  some  of  the  most 
difficult  problems  with  which  he  had  to  deal.  Jewish 
modes  of  thought,  which  he  had  learned  clearly  to  dis- 
tinguish from  the  gospel,  invaded  the  churches  which  he 
founded  and  threatened  to  undo  his  work.  His  converts 
were  taught  that  they  must  observe  the  ceremonies  of 
Judaism,  as  well  as  believe  in  Christ,  in  order  to  be 
saved.  This  Judaizing  error  excited  in  the  apostle  great 
indignation  and  alarm,  and  was  the  occasion  of  his  writ- 
ing his  most  powerful  letters.  Without  bearing  in  mind 
these  circumstances,  it  is  impossible  correctly  to  under- 
stand and  estimate  his  theology. 

Paul's  education  was  «Tewish.  Reared  in  a  strict  Phari- 
saic family  and  trained  in  Rabbinic  schools,  his  chief  study 
would  be  the  Old  Testament  and  the  body  of  tradition 
which  had  grown  up  around  it.  His  epistles  confirm  this 
view  of  his  training.  His  mind  was  a  Jewish  mind.  His 
interpretations  of  the  Old  Testament  and  his  modes  of 
argument  are  those  which  were  current  in  the  Jewish 
schools.  He  employs  the  typical  and  allegorical  methods 
of  exegesis,  but,  in  consequence  of  his  deep  spiritual 
insight,  he  is  not  carried  by  them  into  the  extravagances 
which  were  common.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Paul 
was  a  student  of  Greek  literature  and  philosophy.  The 
few  incidental  references  which  he  makes  to  Greek  writers 
are  utterly  inadequate  to  warrant  such  a  conclusion.  Still, 
liis  early  life  was  passed  in  a   cultured  Greek  city,  and 


INTRODUCTORY  333 

later  he  was  trained  by  the  liberal-minded  Gamaliel.  His 
father  was  a  Roman  citizen  and,  apparently,  a  man  of 
some  position.  These  circumstances  could  not  be  wholly 
without  influence  upon  his  thought  and  character.  They 
must  have  tended  to  give  him  a  considerable  acquaintance 
with  the  world  and  to  impart  to,  his  mind  a  somewhat 
cosmopolitan  cast.  He  would  inevitably  obtain  some 
familiarity  with  Greek  and  Roman  ideas  and  life,  although 
he  would  view  them  from  the  standpoint  of  a  strict  Jew. 

His  theology  is  cast  in  Jewish  moulds,  although  it  took 
on  a  breadth  of  outlook  which  would  be  almost  incon- 
ceivable in  the  case  of  a  Palestinian  Jew.  Those  who 
have  sought  to  show  that  Paul's  thinking  was  strongly 
influenced  by  Alexandrian  thought,  have  not  been  able  to 
prove  more  than  that  contemporary  writings  on  religion, 
all  of  which  were  under  the  influence  of  Judaism,  will 
exhibit  some  resemblances.  These  resemblances  do  not 
seem  to  me  to  show  that  the  apocryphal  Book  of  Wisdom, 
for  example,  was  an  important  formative  power  in  Paul's 
thought,  and  between  Paul  and  Philo  the  differences  far 
exceed  the  resemblances.^  But  his  Roman  citizenship, 
his  acquaintance  with  the  Greek  language,  and  his  associa- 
tion with  Greeks  and  Romans  must  have  greatly  broad- 
ened his  outlook  upon  life.  He  could  never  have  been 
the  man  he  was  without  these.  Thus  while  the  material 
of  his  training  was  substantially  Jewish,  his  exceptional 
breadth  and  versatility  of  mind  enabled  him  to  deal  with 
this  material  in  a  large  and  masterly  way.  It  is  not  fan- 
ciful, therefore,  to  see  in  Paul  something  of  the  Greek  and 
the  Roman,  as  well  as  of  the  Jew.  The  Jewish  religious 
spirit  remained  the  fundamental  factor.  Reverence  for 
God  and  a  passionate  devotion  to  his  service  characterized 
him  throughout.  This  was  the  basis  of  his  character  and 
career.  But  with  this  fundamental  peculiarity  were  com- 
bined a  certain  keenness  and  catholicity  of  thought  which 
were  naturally  involved  in  a  facile  use  of  the  most  culti- 
vated tongue  in  existence,  and  in  the  possession  of  the 

1 1  have  treated  of  this  subject  at  length  in  my  Pauline  Theology^ 
ch.  iii.     Qf.  McGiffert's  Apostolic  Age,  p.  113  sq. 


334  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

rights  and  dignities  of  citizenship  in  the  vast  empire  of 
Rome.  Hence  we  note  in  Paul  not  only  great  religious 
fervor,  but  acute  and  subtle  dialectic,  and  an  undaunted 
energy  which  dares  to  cope  with  the  gigantic  task  of  con- 
quering the  world  for  Christ. 

Paul  has  too  often  been  regarded  as  a  speculative  Chris- 
tian philosopher,  who  had  little  interest  in  historical  facts. 
He  has  been  represented  as  ignorant  of  the  events  of 
Jesus'  life  on  earth  or  as  indifferent  to  them.  It  is  true 
that  the  apostle  in  his  writings  is  chiefly  concerned  to 
maintain  certain  principles.  It  does  not  fall  within  the 
scope  of  his  purpose  to  speak  directly  of  the  concrete  facts 
of  Jesus'  life.  He  alludes  to  them  by  way  of  illustrating 
or  confirming  his  arguments.  But  to  me  it  seems  quite 
incredible  that  Paul  should  not  have  had  a  keen  interest 
in  the  history  of  Jesus  on  earth.  He  resided  in  Jerusalem 
either  during  or  shortly  after  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus. 
He  could  not  have  pursued  his  persecuting  career  without 
learning  much  that  Jesus  had  said  and  done.  After  his 
conversion  the  Lord's  words  and  deeds  must  have  taken 
on  for  his  mind  a  living  interest.  Pie  associated  with 
the  primitive  apostles  for  a  time  in  Jerusalem  and  paid 
a  special  visit  of  fifteen  days'  duration  to  Peter  (Gal. 
i.  18).  How  is  it  conceivable  that  after  the  experience  in 
which  he  had  become  a  Christian  and  a  preacher,  and  after 
his  long  reflection  upon  Christian  truth  in  his  seclusion, 
he  should  not  have  eagerly  learned  from  Peter  as  much 
as  possible  concerning  the  earthly  life  of  his  Master  and 
Saviour  ? 

The  epistles  of  Paul  confirm  the  supposition  that  he 
would  acquaint  himself  with  the  tradition  of  the  words  and 
deeds  of  Jesus.  Through  the  medium  of  this  tradition 
he  had  received  the  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
supper  (1  Cor.  xi.  2,  23)  and  the  narrative  of  the  resur- 
rection (1  Cor.  XV.  3) .  He  was  familiar  with  the  circum- 
stances which  occurred  on  the  night  of  the  Lord's  betrayal, 
with  the  very  words  which  he  spoke  at  the  supper,  with 
the  facts  of  his  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  and  with 
his  various   appearances  after  the   resurrection    (1    Cor. 


INTEODUCTOBY  335 

XV.  3-8).  He  knew  what  Jesus  said  about  marriage  and 
divorce,  and  clearly  distinguished  it  from  his  own  opinions 
and  advices  on  that  subject  (1  Cor.  vii.  10,  25).  In  sev- 
eral other  instances  he  referred  to  words  of  Jesus  (1 
Thess.  iv.  15 ;  1  Cor.  ix.  14),  and  in  one  of  his  discourses 
has  preserved  to  us  that  saying,  not  recorded  elsewhere  : 
"  It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive  "  (Acts  xx. 
35).  He  had  in  his  mind  a  clear  picture  of  Christ  and  his 
sufferings,  and  he  reminds  the  Galatians  how  in  his  preach- 
ing he  had  portrayed  him  before  them  as  the  crucified  One 
(Gal.  iii.  1).  In  his  pre-Christian  life  he  had  kuoAvn 
Christ,  but  it  was  only  a  knowledge  Kara  o-dptca  (2  Cor. 
V.  16).^  When  he  became  a  Christian  this  knowledge  did 
not  lose  its  value,  but  was  transformed  into  a  knowledge 
Kara  Trvev/jia.  What  he  had  known  of  Christ  before  was 
merely  outward  and  superficial;  now  he  truly  knew  him  in 
his  divine  meaning  and  power.  As  a  Christian  he  saw 
Christ  with  new  eyes.^ 

But  Paul  was  not  merely  the  product  of  such  forces 
and  opportunities  as  have  been  mentioned.  His  was  a 
mind  of  marked  originality  and  power.  He  thought 
eagerly  and  profoundly  on  the  subjects  which  engaged 
his  attention.  He  clearly  saw  the  relation  of  one  truth 
to  another.  He  was  the  first  Christian  to  construct  his 
beliefs  into  a  doctrinal  system.  Paul  was  a  born  reasoner. 
We  can  conceive  of  him  as  born  and  educated  as  a  Pales- 
tinian Jew  or  as  an  Alexandrian  Hellenist.  His  language 
and  forms  of  thought  would,  no  doubt,  have  been  very 

1  It  is  wholly  unwarranted  to  understand  this  passage  as  an  assertion 
of  indifference  respecting  the  historical  life  of  Jesus.  The  choice  lies 
among  the  following  interpretations :  (1)  I  do  not  lay  chief  stress,  as 
many  Judaic  Christians  do,  upon  having  known  Christ  in  the  flesh.  (2)  I 
do  not  regard  the  Messiah  as  a  national  deliverer,  as  I  did  before  my 
conversion,  but  as  a  spiritual  King.  (3)  I  do  not  attach  importance  to  the 
Jewish  descent  and  nationality  of  Jesus,  as  I  did  for  a  time  after  my  con- 
version. (4)  Formerly  I  knew  Christ  only  outwardly  ;  now  I  know  him 
in  a  living  fellowship.  This  view,  which  does  not  try  to  define  precisely 
Paul's  former  knowledge  Kara  a-dpKa,  would  include,  to  some  extent, 
elements  contained  in  the  others. 

2  The  traces  of  Paul's  knowledge  of  Christ's  life  and  teaching  are 
fully  exhibited  by  Knowling,  The  Witness  of  the  Epistles,  chs.  v.,  vi. 


336  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  PATJL 

different  from  what  tliey  are;  but  we  are  sure  that  he 
would  still  have  been  the  Christian  thinker,  developing 
his  views  from  certain  fundamental  principles  and  con- 
structing his  thoughts  into  the  unity  of  a  system.  But 
Paul  was  a  mystic  as  well  as  a  logician.  He  believed 
that  the  discerning  eye  sees  the  truth,  and  that  it  is  of 
little  use  to  argue  with  those  who  are  without  spiritual 
perception.  His  arguments  are  mainly  addressed  to 
l3elievers,  and  are  designed  to  help  them  to  define  their 
own  faith  and  to  preserve  it  from  admixture  of  Jewish  or 
heathen  error.  The  combination  of  the  logician  and  the 
mystic  in  Paul  was  a  great  source  of  his  power.  Each 
quality  reacted  on  the  other.  His  logical  mind  preserved 
his  mysticism  from  vagueness  and  extravagance,  and  his 
mystical  contemplations  prevented  his  arguments  from 
taking  on  the  character  of  barren  and  formal  dialectics, 
and  made  them  subservient  to  the  interests  of  vital  and 
practical  religion. 

But  there  is  a  higher  factor  than  any  that  we  have 
named  which  must  be  taken  into  the  account ;  I  mean  the 
enlightening  Spirit  of  God.  Paul  himself  ascribed  his 
achievements  to  the  divine  grace.  He  lived  and  wrought 
under  an  overpowering  sense  of  the  presence  of  God. 
Highly  as  we  may  estimate  his  intellectual  gifts,  he  never 
considered  his  power  to  lie  in  his  reasoning  faculties.  It 
was  his  sense  of  the  appeal  which  divine  truth  makes  to 
the  heart  and  the  conscience  which  made  him  strong  and 
confident.  Christ  had  met  and  conquered  him,  not  by 
argument,  but  by  the  power  of  his  divine  grace  and  glory. 
The  apostle's  preaching  and  teaching  were  based  upon  the 
certainty  that  he  would  prove  to  all  others  who  should 
receive  him,  the  same  transforming  power,  the  same  heav- 
enly wisdom.  Paul's  assertion  "  By  the  grace  of  God  I 
am  what  I  am  "  (1  Cor.  xv.  10),  was  the  presupposition 
of  his  whole  life-work.^ 

The  order  of  treatment  which  I  shall  follow  is  deter- 
mined, in  general,  by  the  considerations  already  advanced. 

1  The  topics  which  are  briefly  touched  upon  in  this  chapter  are  more 
fully  discussed  in  my  Pauline  Theology^  chs.  i.-iv. 


INTRODUCTORY  337 

The  starting-point  of  Paul's  Christian  thinking  was 
anthropological.  The  power  of  sin  preventing  the  reali- 
zation of  the  demands  of  the  divine  law  is  the  fact  with 
which  we  may  naturally  begin  our  exposition.  Thus  our 
first  themes  will  be  human  sin  and  the  divine  law.  Next 
we  shall  turn  to  the  counterpart  of  these  themes,  Ged's 
gracious  purpose  and  promise,  and  the  salvation  from  sin 
vfhich  he  has  provided  in  Christ.  In  this  connection  we 
shall  have  to  study  the  person  and  work  of  the  Redeemer 
and  the  appropriation  and  realization  of  salvation  in  the 
life  of  the  believer.  These  topics  will  naturally  lead  us 
to  consider  the  social  applications  of  the  gospel  in  the 
organization  and  administration  of  the  Church.  Finally, 
we  shall  summarize  the  views  of  the  apostle  concerning 
the  future  life,  and  inquire  how  far  they  involve  a  reasoned 
system  of  eschatological  doctrine. 


.      CHAPTER  II 

FLESH  AND   SPIRIT 

We  may  best  begin  the  investigation  of  Paul's  theology 
with  a  study  of  the  contrast  between  flesh  and  spirit. 
From  Rom.  vii.  7-25  we  learn  how  much  this  contrast 
meant  for  his  pre-Christian  life,  and  how  the  conflict 
between  the  two  principles  had  been  affected  by  his  faith 
in  Christ.  I  assume,  as  a  secure  result  of  exegesis,  that 
this  passage  reflects  Paul's  own  experience,  and  was  in- 
tended to  describe  the  inner  struggle  in  the  life  of  the 
sincere  and  earnest  Jew,  who  sought  peace  with  God  by 
obedience  to  the  demands  of  the  law. 

The  apostle  describes  how  the  law,  by  holding  its  ideal 
constantly  before  him,  revealed  him  to  himself.  He  as- 
pired to  obey  it,  but  a  power  in  his  nature  prevented  him. 
He  gladly  acknowledged  the  binding  force  of  the  law ; 
his  mind,  or  reason,  fully  consented  to  its  obligations. 
But  the  principle  of  sin,  reigning  within  him,  made  com- 
plete obedience  impossible.  "  For  that  which  I  do  I  know 
not ;  for  not  what  I  would,  that  do  I  practice  ;  but  what 
I  hate,  that  I  do.  But  if  what  I  would  not,  that  I  do,  I 
consent  unto  the  law  that  it  is  good.  So  now  it  is  no 
more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  which  dwelleth  in  me  "  (Rom. 
vii.  15-17).  And  sin  is  allied  with  the  flesh.  "I  know 
that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing  " 
(vii.  18).  Sin  dwells  in  the  flesh  and  is  a  "  law  in  the  mem- 
bers which  wars  against  the  law  of  the  mind"  (vii.  23). 
It  is  to  be  noticed  that  sin  and  the  flesh  (o"a/3?)  ^^^  ^^^'® 
distinguished,  at  least  formally;  and,  further,  that  "the 
flesh"  and  "the  members"  (/^eXi;)  are  synonyms.  Evi- 
dently, therefore,  the  flesh  means  the  material  of  which 
the  parts  of  the  body  are  composed.     The  term  here  bears 

338 


FLESH   AND   SPIRIT  339 

a  physical  sense.  The  question  now  arises :  Does  sin, 
according  to  Paul,  have  its  source  and  seat  in  the  body? 
Is  the  flesh  inherently  evil?  Sin  and  the  flesh  are  closely 
connected.  Are  they  inseparable?  Many  scholars,  from 
Baur  ouAvards,  have  held  that  Paul's  philosophy  of  sin 
answers  this  question  aflirmatively-  Several  recent  writ- 
ers explain  this  supposed  doctrine  of  the  inherent  sinful- 
ness of  the  flesh  as  a  result  of  the  influence  of  Greek  dual- 
ism upon  the  mind  of  Paul.^ 

Against  this  view  of  Paul's  doctrine  the  following  con- 
siderations seem  to  me  decisive  :  (1)  Paul  carefully  dis- 
tinguishes sin  from  the  flesh.  Sin  dwells  in  the  flesh, 
takes  occasion  of  its  impulses  and  passions,  and  makes  it 
the  sphere  of  its  manifestation.  But  the  flesh  is  never 
identified  with  sin  or  described  as  inherently  and  neces- 
sarily sinful.  (2)  In  Rom.  vii..  7  sq.  Paul  is  not  speaking 
of  the  origin  of  sin,  but  of  its  empirical  relation  to  the 
flesh.  Even  if  that  relation  is  in  all  cases  what  Paul 
describes  it  in  the  first  person  as  being,  it  would  not  follow 
that  sin  had  a  sensuous  origin.  (3)  In  the  one  passage 
in  which  Paul  treats  of  the  beginning  of  human  sin  (Rom. 
V.  12  s^.),  he  ascribes  it  to  a  voluntary  act  of  transgressipn 
(7ra/oaySa(ji9),  and  not  to  the  nature  of  a  physical  organism 
which  is  regarded  as  in  itself  evil.  In  passages  where 
Paul's  thought  of  the  adp^  transcends  its  physical  mean- 
ing, the  contrast  between  it  and  spirit  is  seen  to  be  pri- 
marily ethical  rather  than  metaphysical.  In  Rom.  viii. 
3-9  the  apostle  contrasts  the  two  principles  sharply.  He 
speaks  of  a  "  flesh  of  sin "  (jrap^  djjLapria^')^  but  it  is  an 
ethical  principle  whose  "mind"  or  disposition  (^^povrjpLo) 
is  hostile  to  God  and  refuses  obedience  to  his  law.  The 
spirit  (irvevpia)  is  the  higher  nature  in  which  man  is  akin 
to  God.  He  yields  to  one  or  the  other  by  the  free  con- 
sent of  his  will,  and  so  lives  or  walks  Kara  adpKa  or  Kara 

1  So  Holsten,  Die  Bedeutung  des  Wortes  adp^^  ii.  s.  w. ;  Ltidemann, 
Die  Anthropologie  des  Faulus,  50-71  ;  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  ii.  19 
sq.  ;  and  formerly  Pfleiderer,  who,  however,  materially  modified  his  view 
on  this  subject  in  Das  Urchristenthum  and  in  the  second  edition  of 
PauUnismus. 


340  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

TTvev/jLa.  Whichever  he  does,  his  act  is  voluntary,  and  has 
its  moral  quality  in  consequence  of  his  choice  and  prefer- 
ence. That  the  contrast  between  flesh  and  spirit  is  ethi- 
cal and  has  its  seat  in  the  will,  is  also  evident  from  Paul's 
description  of  the  "  works  of  the  flesh  "  and  the  "  fruit  of 
the  Spirit"  respectively  (Gal.  v.  19-23).  The  apostle  is 
here  contrastinof  two  kinds  of  moral  choice  and  action. 
He  says  nothing  of  an  ontological  contrast  between  sub- 
stances, one  of  which  is  the  principle  of  sin.  (4)  When 
Paul  compares  the  natural  man,  Adam,  and  the  spiritual 
man,  Christ,  he  does  not  intimate  that  the  contrast  be- 
tween "natural"  and  "spiritual"  involves,  in  itself,  the 
contrast  between  sinful  and  holy.  On  the  contrary,  we 
see  from  Rom.  v.  12  that  Paul  held  the  Jewish  view  of 
Adam's  original  sinlessness.  (5)  That  the  body  (or  its 
material,  the  flesh)  is  not  essentially  sinful,  is  clear  from 
the  way  in  which  Paul  speaks  of  it  as  capable  of  being 
cleansed  and  sanctitied.  Christians  may  "cleanse  them- 
selves from  all  defilement  of  flesh  and  spirit"  (2  Cor. 
vii.  1).  "  The  body  is  for  the  Lord  "  (1  Cor.  vi.  13)  and 
is  capable  of  sanctification  to  his  service.  The  members 
are  capable  of  becoming  instruments  of  righteousness 
(oirXa  StfcaLocrvvr]^,  Rom.  vi.  13).  The  body  is  to  be  made 
"  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God  "  (Rom.  xii.  1), 
"  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost "  (1  Cor.  vi.  19,  20).  In  the 
body  the  life  of  Jesus  may  be  manifested  (2  Cor.  iv.  11), 
and  it  will  be  quickened  and  transformed  in  the  resurrec- 
tion (Rom.  viii.  11,  23).  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  essen- 
tially and  necessarily  sinful.  (6)  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Paul  held  both  that  Christ  possessed  a  real  human 
body  and  that  he  was  sinless.  To  him  belonged  the  adp^ ; 
but  not  a  aap^  d/uLapria^  (Rom.  viii.  3).  Hence  adp^  is 
not  necessarily  sinful. ^ 

In  the  contrast  between  flesh  and  spirit  we  have  to  do, 
not  with  a  metaphysical  dualism  based  upon  the  inherent 
evil  of  matter  and  derived  from  the  Gr?eco- Alexandrian 
speculation,  but  with  a  view  of  man  which  has  its  basis 

1  The  vieAv  which  I  have  expressed  on  this  point  is  supported  by 
Bovon,  M^n^goz,  Gloel,  Beyschlag,  Sabatier,  Bruce  et  al. 


FLESH   AND    SPIRIT  341 

in  the  Old  Testament.  Let  us  trace  its  main  out- 
lines. 

The  primary  meaning  of  adp^  is,  of  course,  the  mate- 
rial of  the  body.  Flesh  is  living,  organized  matter  and 
belongs  to  birds  and  fishes  as  well  as  to  men  (1  Cor.  xv. 
39).  Ill  the  narrative  of  creation  in  Genesis  (ii.  7)  man 
is  described  as  made  of  material  elements  animated  by  a 
breath  from  God.  Thus  man  became  a  "living  soul" 
(^yjrvxv  ^(i^o'ci,  1  Cor.  xv.  45).  The  matter  which  is  thus 
animated  by  a  principle  of  life  Q^vxn)  i^  "  flesh,"  in  the 
fundamental  meaning  of  that  word.  It  thus  naturally 
happens  that  "  flesh  "  (^'^3)  is,  in  the  Old  Testament,  a 
frequent  synonym  for  man's  creaturehood  —  a  name  for 
his  weak  and  perishable  nature,  in  contrast  to  God.  In 
this  idea  the  Pauline  usage  has  its  roots.  Ea/o|  and  ^\rv')(rj 
are  kindred  terms,  and  aapKiKo^  and  -^Irv^tKo^;  are  syno- 
nyms, in  contrast  to  TrvevfiaTiKO'^  (1  Cor.  ii.  14,  15).  2a/3| 
Kol  alfjua  denotes  man  either  in  the  perishable,  corruptible 
part  of  his  nature  (1  Cor.  xv.  50),  or  in  his  incompetence 
as  contrasted  with  the  power  of  God  (Gal.  i.  16).  This 
mortal  life  is  lived  "  in  the  flesh,"  that  is,  in  creaturely 
weakness  and  liability  to  death  (Gal.  ii.  20;  Phil.  i.  22). 
Hence  the  term  naturally  designates  outward  relations,  as 
one's  descent  and  kinship  (Rom.  iv.  1 ;  ix.  5,  8 ;  xi.  14), 
or  the  relation  of  master  and  slave,  in  contrast  to  spiritual 
brotherhood  (Col.  iii.  22 ;  Philem.  16),  or  material  goods 
(ra  aapiciKa)  in  contrast  to  spiritual  goods  (ja  irvevfiaTiKoi^ 
Rom.  XV.  27;  1  Cor.  ix.  11).  All  such  relations  as  are 
involved  in  phj^sical  descent,  Jewish  citizenship,  and 
knowledge  by  the  senses  are,  in  themselves,  Kara  adpfca, 
outward,  incidental,  unessential  (Gal.  vi.  12;  2  Cor.  xi. 
18;  V.  6). 

From  these  considerations  the  conclusion  might  plausibly 
be  drawn  that  for  Paul  a-dp^  is  a  name  for  man's  creaturely 
weakness  in  contrast  to  God.^  Clear  evidence  of  the  simple 
reproduction  of  tliis  Old  Testament  idea  is  unquestionably 
found  in  some  Pauline  passages.  But  will  this  interpre- 
tation apply  to  his  language  as  a  whole  ?     We  shall  pres- 

1  So  Wendt,  Die  Begriffe  Fleish  und  Geist  im  bibl.  Sprachgebrauch. 


342  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

ently  see  that  Paul  has  advanced  beyond  this  conception 
and  has  given  a  more  positive  ethical  content  to  his  idea 
of  the  flesh  than  this  interpretation  involves.  The  steps 
of  that  development  it  is  not  difficult  to  imagine.  Man's 
Aveakness  is,  in  one  aspect  of  it,  moral  weakness ;  but 
moral  weakness  is  not  merely  negative,  but  positive. 
Thus  with  "  the  flesh  "  is  naturally  associated  the  notion 
of  positive  sinfulness.  The  flesh  is  not  merely  weak,  but 
is  the  seat  of  passions  and  impulses  which  easily  give 
occasion  to  sinful  choices  and  actions.  In  this  way  the 
ontological  dualism  of  flesh  and  spirit  (to  be  carefully 
distinguished  from  the  Greek  dualism)  easily  merges  into 
the  ethical  dualism  of  Paul.  He  looked  upon  the  flesh  in 
its  positive  aspects.  He  had  experienced  the  power  of  its 
passions  and  the  way  in  which  it  allied  itself  with  sin  and 
became  the  instrument  of  sinful  desire.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment contrast  still  remained  the  basis  of  Paul's  doctrine, 
but  the  contrast  was  sharpened  and  ethicized  by  Paul's 
intense  realization  of  the  power  of  sin.  1  cannot,  there- 
fore, agree  with  that  theory  which  so  far  disregards  the 
Old  Testament  basis  of  Paul's  doctrine  as  to  maintain 
that  "  the  flesh  "  is  for  him  a  name  for  the  whole  man  in 
one  aspect  of  his  life,  in  contrast  to  spirit  which  designates 
the  whole  man  in  another  aspect  of  it.^  If  it  is  certain 
that  Paul  is  not  to  be  interpreted  in  terms  of  Manichsean 
or  Alexandrian  dualism,  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  improbable 
that  his  language  is  to  be  construed  in  accordance  with 
philosophical  monism.  Paul  was  a  Jewish  dualist  whose 
dualism  was  rendered  thoroughly  ethical  by  his  intense 
sense  and  experience  of  sin.  His  dualism  was  not  based 
upon  the  idea  of  the  inherent  evil  of  matter,  but  upon  the 
fact  of  experience  that  out  of  man's  sensuous  nature  arise 
potent  enticements  to  sin  and  that,  in  actual  sinful  hu- 
manity, the  flesh  is  a  powerful  ally  of  evil. 

Before  further  testing  this  view  b}^  reference  to  the  rele- 
vant passages  it  is  necessary  to  examine  Paul's  use  of  the 
term  irvevfjLa.    In  Rom.  vii.  18-25  we  observe  tliat  the  prin- 
ciple which  is  contrasted  with  the  flesh  is  called  the  good 
1  So  M^n^goz,  Le  Feche  et  la  Bedemptio7i,  pp.  41-64. 


FLESH   AND   SPIRIT  343 

will  (to  OiXeiv  to  Kokov)^  the  inward  man  (eVco  av6pa>- 
TTo^),  the  mind  (o  i^oO?),  or  the  law  of  the  mind  or  reason 
(6  v6fjLo<;  Tov  vo6<i').  These  terms  must  be  synonyms  of  to 
TTvevfjua^  which  is  so  often  opposed  to  the  flesh.  The  spirit 
of^Tian  is,  then,  the  true  ego,  the  better  self,  the  spiritual 
nature  in  which  he  is  most  closely  kindred  to  God.  The 
spirit  is  that  immaterial  part  of  man  which  relates  him  to 
the  eternal  and  imperishable  world.  Hence  it  stands  over 
against  the  corruptible  flesh  which  has  no  future.  He 
who  makes  the  sphere  of  the  outward  and  sensuous  his 
world  can  only  reap  corruption,  while  he  who  fosters  the 
life  of  the  spirit  will  reap  eternal  blessedness  (Gal.  vi.  8), 
''  for  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  death,  but  the  mind  of  the 
spirit  is  life  and  peace"  (Rom.  viii.  6),  The  flesh  is 
subject  to  decay,  but  the  spirit  is  kindred  to  God,  and 
bears  within  itself  the  potency  of  an  endless  life.  Hence 
to  live  or  walk  according  to  the  spirit  means  to  cultivate 
the  higher  nature  and  to  realize  the  life  of  fellowship  with 
God. 

The  spirit  is  constitutive  in  human  nature  ;  it  belongs 
to  all  men  as  the  offspring  of  God  (Acts  xvii.  29).  It  is 
true  that  Paul  describes  the  "  first  Adam,"  the  archetype 
of  natural  humanity,  as  a  "living  soul"  (i/ru%^  fwcra), 
without  saying  anything  of  a  "spirit,"  while  the  "last 
Adam  "  is  called  a  "  life-giving  spirit "  (Trvevfia  ^(oottolovv^ 
1  Cor.  XV.  45).  But  to  conclude  from  this  passage  that 
the  natural  man,  according  to  Paul,  possesses  no  irvevixa^ 
Avould  be  an  unwarranted  argumentum  e  silentio.  One 
might  as  easily  prove  from  it  that  Jesus  Christ  possessed 
no  soul  and  no  body.  Adam  and  Christ  are  here  con- 
trasted only  in  a  single  particular  ;  the  former  is  the 
natural,  the  latter  the  spiritual  head  of  the  race.  It  is 
natural  that  Paul  should  most  frequently  speak  of  the  spirit 
in  describing  Christians,  because  in  their  life  the  spirit  is 
the  predominant  element  (Rom.  viii.  16).  The  Christian 
man  is  Trz^ev/xart/cd?,  or  if  he  must  in  some  cases  still  be 
described  as  aapKc/co^,  it  is  because  he  has  not  yet  realized 
the  idea  of  his  Christian  calling  (1  Cor.  iii.  1-3).  In 
that  case  the  professed  Christian  is  really  living  after  the 


344  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

manner  of  the  unreneAvecl  man.  But  the  human  'jrvevfia 
is  not  a  donum  superadditum  which  is  conferred  in  regener- 
ation. It  is  a  factor  of  man's  personality  which  is  developed 
and  assumes  dominance  in  the  Christian  life.  Before  his 
conversion  when  the  flesh  mercilessly  ruled  his  life,  Paul 
still  possessed  the  moral  reason,  the  spiritual  nature,  which 
often  asserted  its  claims  and  demanded  its  right  to  control 
his  action.  The  fornicator  at  Corinth  possessed  a  irvevfxa 
which  was  capable  of  being  saved  (1  Cor.  v.  5).  Paul 
attributes  man's  self-knowledge  to  "the  spirit  of  man 
which  is  in  him"  (1  Cor.  ii.  11).  The  spirit  is  thus  seen 
to  be  a  constituent  element  in  human  nature. 

We  have  now  seen  what  is  the  fundamental  idea  under- 
lying Paul's  use  of  the  terms  "  flesh  "  and  "  spirit "  when 
they  are  set  in  contrast.  There  are  certain  cases  where 
both  are  used,  in  a  neutral  sense  in  which  this  contrast  is 
not  in  mind.  When,  for  example,  Paul  speaks  of  being 
present  with  the  Corinthian  Church  "in  spirit"  (1  Cor. 
V.  3),  he  means  that  he  symj^athetically  imagines  what  is 
transpiring  in  their  congregation.  In  a  popular  use  of  the 
words  the  terms  irvevixa  and  '^v')(rj  miglit  be  used  inter- 
changeably (2  Cor.  i.  23;  Col.  iii.  23).  In  writing  to  the 
Corinthians  of  his  disappointments  and  trials  he  can  even 
say  in  one  place  that  his  flesh  found  no  relief  (2  Cor.  vii. 
5),  and  in  another  that  his  spirit  found  no  relief  (ii.  13). 
But  wherever  the  contrast  between  flesh  and  spirit  is 
spoken  of  in  connection  with  the  moral  and  religious  life, 
the  basis  of  that  contrast  is  the  conflict  in  human  nature, 
as  it  actually  is,  between  sensuous  impulses  which  become 
incentives  to  wrong  choice  and  action,  and  the  higher 
moral  nature  which  knows  and  approves  the  right.  This, 
I  say,  is  the  basis  or  starting-point  of  the  contrast.  But 
what  then  is  that  "  ethical  use  "  which  Paul  makes  of  the 
word  adp^^  and  how  does  that  usage  stand  related  to  the 
Old  Testament  contrast  of  the  material  and  the  spiritual 
factors  of  human  nature? 

Paul's  doctrine  of  the  flesh  was  not  intended  to  be  a 
philosophy  of  the  origin  of  sin.  So  far  as  the  apostle 
has  given  any  account  of  sin's  origin,  it  is  found  in  the 


FLESH   AND   SPIRIT  345 

parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ  (Rom.  y.  12-21).  In 
what  Paul  sa3^s  of  the  adp^^  he  is  speaking  entirely  of 
empirical  humanity  as  it  is  since  the  entrance  of  sin  into 
the  world.  He  does  not  represent  man  as  originally  and 
by  his  constitution  sinful.  On  the  contrary,  he  became 
sinful  by  an  act  of  will.  But  he  was  by  creation  carnal  ; 
he  had  a  lower  nature  whose  appetites  and  passions  readily , 
entered  into  alliance  with  depraved  affections  and  a  per- 
verted will.  Til  11^  the  flesh  became  a  aap^  dfiapTLa'; ;  the 
body  a  crw/xa  a^apria^  (Rom.  viii.  3  ;  vi.  6).  The  mem- 
bers became  the  instruments  of  sin  and  the  sphere  of  its 
manifestation.  It  is  by  such  an  easy  transition  that  the 
physical  notion  of  the  flesh,  which  is  found  in  the  Old 
Testament,  passes  over  into  the  ethical  conception  of  it, 
which  we  find  in  Paul.  A  passage  like  Rom.  vi.  19  :  "I 
speak  after  the  manner  of  men  because  of  the  infirmity  of 
your  flesh,"  suggests  the  nature  of  the  transition.  The 
Roman  Christians  were  still  morally  weak,  and  had  not 
yet  fully  learned  that  the  Christian  life  required  that  they 
should  make  their  members  servants  to  righteousness, 
and  not  to  uncleanness  and  iniquity.  Here  the  moral 
weakness  which  is  connected  with  the  flesh  is,  primarily, 
a  tendency  to  carnality  of  life.  Here  creaturely  weakness 
has  its  positive  side,  which  is  moral  depravation. 

The  Corinthian  Christians,  whom  Paul  calls  crapKLKol 
(1  Cor.  iii.  3),  are  also  described  as  weak  and  immature, 
babes  needing  to  be  carefully  nursed.  But  their  weak- 
ness is  not  merely  negative ;  it  is  a  moral  perversion 
issuing  in  ''jealousy  and  strife."  These  passages  carry 
us  over  to  the  more  strictly  ethical  use  of  adp^  whose 
various  "  works,"  partly  sensuous  sins  and  partly  sins  of 
disposition,  are  described  in  Gal.  v.  19-21.  It  is  a  cata- 
logue of  sins  which  issue  from  the  dominance  of  the  lower 
nature.  All  forms  of  sin  have  a  certain  kinship  and 
unity.  Hence  the  dominion  of  carnal  impulses  involves 
the  supremacy  of  the  lower  nature,  and  so  naturally 
issues  in  other  forms  of  sin  than  those  which  are  more 
directly  sensuous.  Even  in  this  passage  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  suppose  that  the  apostle  entirely  deserts  the  Old 


346  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

Testament  basis  of  his  doctrine.  The  same  remark  ap- 
plies to  his  language  in  Rom.  vi.  12  sq.  The  keynote 
of  this  passage  is  ;  "  Let  not  sin  reign  in  your  mortal 
body,  that  ye  should  obey  the  lusts  thereof :  neither  pre- 
sent your  members  unto  sin  as  instruments  of  unright- 
eousness" (y.  12).  The  thought  here  is:  Do  not  allow 
sin  to  subdue  to  its  uses  your  bodily  powers  and  desires. 
Preserve  your  members  from  such  slavery  and  make  them 
subservient  to  righteousness.  In  Rom.  viii.  3  sq.  the  flesh 
is  described  as  a  power  which,  in  its  alliance  with  sin,  is 
so  strong  that  the  law  could  not  vanquish  it.  Christ,  how- 
ever, has  appeared  in  the  flesh  (without  sin)  and  has 
dethroned  sin  which  reigned  therein.  The  reference  to 
Christ's  appearance  in  the  flesh,  and  the  synonymous  use 
of  "flesh"  and  "body"  in  the  passage  (see  vv,  10,  11) 
show  that  the  Old  Testament  contrast  of  body  and  spirit, 
the  earthly  and  the  heavenly  constituents  of  man's  per- 
sonality, lies  at  the  basis  of  this  representation.  The 
flesh  is  personified.  It  has  a  "  mind "  (jj>p6vr)iJia)  ;  it  re- 
fuses obedience  to  God  (y.  7).  It  is  conceived  of  as  a 
moral  power  ruling  the  life  of  those  who  are  subject  to  it. 
The  body  is  almost  identified  with  the  sin  whose  instru- 
ment it  is.  The  flesh  has  become  a  synonym  for  the  lower 
nature  in  general.  But,  strictly  speaking,  the  identifica- 
tion of  the  flesh  with  sin  is  not  made,  either  here  or  else- 
where. The  flesh  may  be  so  subdued  to  the  service  of 
righteousness  as  no  longer  to  be  a  hindrance  to  the  Chris- 
tian life.  In  the  Christian  man  the  dominant  element  is 
the  spirit,  and,  although  his  body  is  subject  to  decay  and 
death  in  consequence  of  sin,  it  will  be  quickened  and 
transformed  at  the  resurrection  (yv.  10,  11),  and  made 
like  to  Christ's  "body  of  glory"  (Phil.  iii.  21). 

From  this  review  of  the  passages  it  seems  evident  to 
me  that  no  definition  of  the  adp^  can  be  given  which  will 
be  equally  applicable  to  all  the  uses  which  Paul  makes  of 
that  word.  Primarily,  adp^  is  the  material  of  the  body, 
generally  considered  as  a  seat  of  impulses  which  become  A 
motives  to  sin,  but  sometimes  as  a  symbol  of  creaturely 
weakness.      But  moral  weakness  implies  a  positive  per- 


FLESH   AND   SPIRIT  347 

version,  and  sensuous  appetites  and  passions  enter  into 
natural  alliance  with  sins  of  disposition,  and  thus  crdp^ 
easily  becomes  a  synonym  for  the  lower  nature  in  general, 
in  contrast  to  the  better  self,  the  conscience  or  moral  and 
religious  nature.  Paul  uses  these  terms  popularly  and 
for  practical  purposes,  and  without  any  thought  of  making 
precise  psychological  distinctions.  The  main  points  are 
that  Paul  distinguishes  sin  from  the  flesh  and  from  the 
organism  which  is  composed  of  flesh,  the  body.  Evil  is 
not  traced  to  a  sensuous  origin,  although  it  is  extended 
and  intensified  by  its  connection  with  sensuous  appetites 
and  passions.  His  references  to  the  flesh  are  made  not 
from  speculative  motives,  but  on  the  basis  of  experience. 
Their  import  is  not  metaphysical  but  ethical. 

In  the  light  of  these  considerations  we  see  to  what  extent 
they  are  right  who  suppose  adp^  to  be  used  in  a  neutral 
sense.  Metaphysically  considered,  the  flesh  is  neutral ; 
empirically  considered  it  is  sinful.  Matter  as  such  is  not 
evil,  nor  is  it  the  source  of  evil;  but  the  body,  as  ani- 
mated by  a  soul  capable  of  feelings  and  appetites,  is  a 
source  of  temptation  and  a  seat  of  evil.  But  since  by  a 
perversion  of  will  sin  entered  the- world,  it  has  made  the 
body  its  slave,  and  has  subjected  it  to  vanity  and  corrup- 
tion. 

A  fair  test  of  the  correctness  of  our  conclusions  is  found 
in  Paul's  attitude  towards  asceticism.  He  does,  indeed, 
speak  of  subduing  the  body  (1  Cor.  ix.  27),  and  of  put- 
ting to  death  the  members  or  the  deeds  of  the  body 
(Col.  iii.  5;  Rom.  viii.  13).  But  how  does  he  do  this? 
Not  by  self-inflicted  tortures,  not  by  needless  hardships 
and  sufferings  ;  but  by  maintaining,  through  the  aid  of 
divine  grace,  the  predominance  of  the  spirit ;  by  summon- 
ing every  power  in  the  struggle  for  the  attainment  of 
good ;  by  contending,  as  athletes  contend,  for  the  incor- 
ruptible crown  of  Christian  virtue  through  self-control 
and  the  choice  and  pursuit  of  what  is  good  (1  Cor.  ix. 
24-27).  Paul  neither  practices  nor  recommends  asceti- 
cism. He  discountenances  it  as  powerless  to  promote  the 
spiritual  life.     On  the  contrary,  a  self-imposed  humility 


348  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

and  severity  to  the  body,  which  adopt  as  their  maxim  : 
"  Handle  not,  nor  taste,  nor  touch,"  belong  to  the  rudi- 
ments of  the  world,  and  "  are  not  of  any  value  against  the 
indulgence  of  the  flesh"  (Col.  ii.  16-23). 

It  thus  appears  that  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  flesh  offers  no 
solution  for  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  sin.  Sin  origi- 
nated in  a  perversion  of  the  human  will  and  has  its  seat, 
primarily,  in  the  will.  But  it  extends  its  power  to  all  the 
faculties  and  perverts  them  all  to  its  own  uses.  The 
hereditary  aspect  of  sin  will  next  come  into  consideration. 


CHAPTER   III 

ADAM  AND  THE   RACE 

The  historical  origin  and  transmission  of  sin  is  touched 
upon  by  Paul  in  what  he  says  of  the  relation  of  Adam  to 
the  race.  It  is  evident  that  the  apostle  read  the  story  of 
the  first  man  and  his  fall  in  Genesis  a&  literal  hiaLary. — .  l< 
HealsQ  shared  the  view  which  was  current  in  his  time^ 
^^t  the  sinfulness  of  mankind  in  general  had  its  ori.gfin_ 
in  the  transgression"QrAdam!  Physkal  death  ^vas  viewed 
as  the  consequence.^  of  sin.  Sufik^arft  ±he  preRiippositions 
Q_f  PauVs  references  tjiJi-Le^.biJXfiditary  aspect  of  sin  and 
death.  1  Two  passages  are  of  special  importance  in  this 
connection :  1  Cor,  xv.  45-49  (cf.  v.  22^  and  Rom,  v. 
12-2L 

]ji  thf,fix^tj>L^'^^^'^  ppss^^g'^g  ^-hn  apostle  is.j2antr.a&tingL 
Adam  anrl  Christ   as  the  h^^^    ^^  natural  n.nrl  of  spiritnal 

humanity  respectively.  He  is  illustrating  the  saying  of 
verse  22  :  "  As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all 
be  made  alive."  He  accordingly  describes  Adam's  nature. 
He  is  "  of  the  earth,  earthy,"  and  hence  all  men  as  natural 
descendants  of  Adam  are,  like  him,  subject  to  mortal 
frailty.  Nothing  is  here  said  of  Adam's  sin ;  the  whole 
passage  is  a  description  of  him  as  a  natural  man,  a  child 
of  earth,  and  therefore  liable  to  death.  But  does  the 
apostle  then  mean  to  imply  that  Adam  was  by  his  very 
nature  mortal  ;  that  all  die  in  him  because  he  was  himself, 
even  apart  from  sin,  a  perishable  creature  ?  This  conclu- 
sion would  not  agree  with  Rom.  v.  12  sq.,  where  death 
is  certainly  contemplated  as  the  consequence  of  sin.  Nor 
does  the  apostle  in  teaching  that  Adam  was  "natural," 

1  Cf.  The  Pauline  Theology,  pp.  125,  126. 
349 


350  THE  THEOLOGY   OF  PAUL 

while  Christ  is  "  spiritual,"  mean  to  imply  that  Adam  had 
no  spiritual  nature.  He  is  contemplating  Adam  in  a  cer- 
tain aspect  of  his  being  as  contrasted  with  Christ.  Adam 
was  a  creature  liable  to  death,  and  his  descendants  share 
that  liability.  Christ  is  a  life-giving  spirit,  and  those  who 
are  joined  to  him  constitute  a  spiritual  humanity  over 
which  death  can  have  ]io  power.  Paul's  idea  must  have 
been  that  which  underlies  the  Old  Testament  representa- 
tions, that  man's  primitive  condition  was  that  of  weakness 
and  indeterminateness  ;  that  he  was,  so  to  speak,  a  candi- 
date for  immortality.  He  was  by  nature  a  creature, 
but  he  might  by  obedience  attain  immortality.  When 
he  sinned,  this  possibility  was  forfeited  and  he  became 
actually  subject  to  death.  The  two  goals,  life  and  death, 
were  conceived  as  set  before  him.  Which  goal  he  should 
attain  would  hinge  upon  his  obedience  or  disobedience 
to  God.  These  also  were  presuppositions  with  Paul, 
derived  from  the  Old  Testament  and  from  the  popular 
Jewish  theology. 

The  modern  mind  inevitably  asks  how  far  these  ideas  of 
the  apostle  accord  with  critical  theories  of  the  ancient 
traditions  embodied  in  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  and 
with  current  views  of  the  history  of  mankind.  In  order 
to  make  any  such  comparison  at  all,  we  must  translate 
Paul's  terms  into  their  modern  equivalents.  We  must  no 
longer  regard  the  description  of  the  first  human  pair, 
their  temptation  and  fall,  as  history,  but  as  a  legendary 
rendering  of  man's  moral  experience,  coming  down  in  its 
substance  from  a  remote  antiquity,  and  at  length  taking 
form,  in  accordance  with  the  genius  of  Israel's  religion, 
in  the  present  book  of  Genesis.  When  this  is  done  such 
points  as  the  following  present  themselves  to  our  notice  : 
n^^Adam.  the  symbol  of  primitive  man,  is  not  regarded 
as  perfect,  but  only  as  innocent  and  undeyelopecE  Ke  is 
conceived  of  as  a  weak  and  earthly  creature,  an  dv0p(O7ro<; 
'Xp'iico^  in  whom  the  lower  nature  predominates,  a  "  living 
soul "  (^/^f^^  f(wo-a)  with  animal  appetites  and  passions, 
but  capable  also  of  choice  and  action  and  of  developing  a 
positive  moral  character.     Primitive  man  is  morally  neu- 


ADAM   AND   THE   RACE  351 

tral,  as  yet  non-moral,  though  endowed  with  capacities 
and  powers  which  make  possible  to  him  a  moral  career, 
either  of  obedience  or  of  disobedience  to  God. 

(2)  Physiology  regards  death  as  the  law  to  which 
all  organisms  are  subject  by  their  very  nature.  What 
standing  ground  can  then  be  left  for  the  view  of  Paul, 
that  physical  death  is  the  consequence  of  sin  ?  There  is 
a  measure  of  inconsistency  here,  though  not  of  the  sort 
which  is  sometimes  asserted.  Jewish  religious  thought. 
in  w-hich  Paul's  view  wrs  rontod,  nnnlrl  nnt  InnV  nf  rlonfV. 
frQixL-tli^_standpoint  of  natural  science.  Death  was  viewed 
not  as  a  law  of  all  created  organisms,  but  in  its  ethical 
aspects.  That  which  constituted  the  essence  of  death  to 
the  Hebrew  mind  was  not  physical  dissolution,  but  the 
weakness,  sickness,  and  sorrow  which  are  its  accompani- 
ments here  and,  especially,  the  dread  of  the  dark  under- 
world, the  land  of  shadows  and  forgetfulness,  into  which 
death  ushers  the  soul.  The  word  "death  "  had  wiflp.ly  rlif- 
fcx^aLassociations  for  the  Hebrew  mind  from  what  it  has 
for  the  physjolopist.  _The  word  "life  "  has  equally  different 
meanings.  Paul  could  say  that  Christ  has  "abolished 
death "  (2  Tim.  i.  10),  although  he  knew  perfectly  well 
that  physical  dissolution  is  the  lot  of  all  bodily  organisms, 
^or  the  Christian  death  has  been  trana^^i-'-'-'^^  ^j  vArlAi-i^p- 
tion  into  departure  to  be  with  Christ  (Phil,  i.  23\  _  All_ 
things  are  his  who  belongs  to  Christ,  including  life  and 
death(T  Cor.^.  22),  because  Christ  has  made  death  the 
gateway  into  his  eternal  joy.  As  a  mere  physiological 
fact  —  the  fact  of  physical  dissolution  —  death  remains 
what  it  was  before.  But  by  a  Jewish  mind  death  is  not 
regarded  as  a  mere  physiological  phenomenon.  When 
Paul  says  that  death  entered  the  world  and  has  continued 
to  hold  sway  over  mankind  in  consequence  of  sin,  we 
should  not,  in  order  to  resolve  the  difficulty  in  question, 
jump  to  the  conclusion,  as  many  expositors  have  done, 
that  moral  and  not  physical  death  is  meant.  We  should 
rather  remember  what  "  death "  connotes  to  the  Jewish 
mind,  which  does  not  separate  the  physical  from  the  moral 
after  the  manner  of  natural  science,  but  finds  the  primary 


352  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   PAUL 

significance  of  the  fact  of  death  in  its  ethical  aspects. 
It  is  sometimes  said  :  On  Paul's  principles  we  should  be 
required  to  suppose  that,  had  sin  never  entered  the  world, 
all  the  liuman  beings  who  ever  lived  would  still  be  living 
on  earth.  The  objection  only  shows  how  the  real  import 
of  Paul's  doctrine  may  be  missed  by  making  physical  deatli 
mean  in  Paul  just  what  it  means  in  biology.  Paul's 
thought  would  lead  to  the  idea  that,  had  there  been  no 
sin,  death,  with  its  accompaniments  of  sorrow,  pain,  and 
fear,  would  not  have  been.  But  some  other  transition  or 
cessation  of  earthly  existence  (which  would  be  death  in 
the  sense  of  biology)  would  not  thereby  be  excluded.  I 
am  not  contending  that  the  Jewish  view  of  death  which 
Paul  shared  is  wholly  warranted  from  a  scientific  point  of 
view,  but  only  that  the  subject  was  regarded  by  Paul  from 
quite  a  different  standpoint  from  that  of  physical  science. 
Practically,  the  religious  motive  of  Paul's  doctrine  was 
that  the  "sting  of  death  is  sin"  (1  Cor.  xv.  5Q}.  It  is 
sin  which  makes  death  terrible.  Redemption  robs  it  of 
its  terrors.  Theoretically,  Paul  held  something  more  than 
this.  But  what  was  more  than  this  was  incidental  to  his 
thought  in  consequence  of  his  Jewish  training,  and  was 
not  essential  to  his  view  of  religion. 

(3)  With  Paul  sin  is  an  affair  of  the  will.  It  entered 
the  world  by  man's  choice.  Whatever  may  have  been 
man's  native  weakness,  whatever  his  liability  to  tempta- 
tion in  consequence  of  animal  appetites,  sin  itself  is  a  per- 
version of  the  will.  It  is  therefore  alien  to  man's  nature. 
It  is  a  false  direction  and  wrong  use  of  his  powers,  a  miss- 
ing of  his  true  goal.  It  is  not  inherent  in  his  sensuous 
nature  or  in  his  imperfection  as  a  creature,  but  in  his 
choices  and  character.  Hence,  man  is  responsible  for  his 
sin  and  guilty  in  consequence  of  it.  It  brings  him  under 
the  holy  displeasure  of  God  (Rom.  i.  18).  Various  as  are 
the  degrees  of  light  which  different  men  enjoy,  all  have 
light  enough  to  render  them  inexcusable  for  their  sin 
(Rom.  i.  20  ;  ii.  1). 

(4)  Sin  is  universal.  "  All  have  sinned,  and  fall  short 
of  the  glory  of  God"  (Rom.  iii.  23).      The  argument  of 


ADAM  AND   THE  RACE  353 

the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  based  upon  the  fact  that  all 
men,  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike,  are  sinners.  As  such  they 
are  guilty  before  God  and  can  be  saved  only  by  grace. 

We  note  in  Paul  two  classes  of  references  to  the  subject 
of  sin.  One  set  of  passages  speaks  of  sinful  choices  and 
actions,  Trapa^daei^,  irapaTrTco/JLara  (Rom.  ii.  23  ;  iv.  15  ; 
V.  14  et  aL')\  the  other,  of  sin  in  general  as  a  world-ruling 
power,  d/jLapTia  (Rom.  iii.  9,  v.  12,  13  et  al.^.  Menegoz 
distinguishes  these  two  ideas  by  calling  the  former  Paul's 
moral  notion,  the  latter  his  dogmatic  notion,  of  sin.  "  The 
moral  notion,"  he  says,  "  considers  sin  in  itself,  in  its 
nature,  in  its  essence.  The  dogmatic  notion  considers  it 
in  its  origin,  its  extent,  its  role,  its  end."^  Paul  speaks, 
on  the  one  hand,  of  concrete  sin  ,•  on  the  other,  of  sin  in 
the  abstract.  In  modern  parlance  we  should  make  the 
distinction  by  speaking  of  sinful  acts  and  of  a  sinful  char- 
acter out  of  which  sinful  acts  spring.  The  peculiarity  of 
Paul's  thought  is  that  he  personifies  sin,  in  this  latter 
sense,  and  speaks  of  it  as  entering  the  world  and  ruling 
mankind.  But  this  use  of  language  need  cause  no  con- 
fusion. By  sin,  in  this  personified  sense,  he  means  human 
sinfulness  collectively  considered  —  the  power  of  a  uni- 
versal sinful  bias. 

.It  is  il2_nnnr>pctinn  Avifli  tliia  ir^Pn.  of  sin  fhnf,  Pni]!  rlra^^a 

the  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ  (Rom,  v.  12-21). 
The  aim  of  that  passage  is  to  magnify  the  grace  of  God  in 
redemption.  This  the  apostle  does  by  showing  that  the 
divine  merc}^  which  has  been  manifested  in  Christ  is  more 
than  a  match  for  the  power  of  sin,  mighty  as  that  power 
is.  As  the  apostle  touches  successively  upon  the  points 
of  comparison,  he  emphasizes  the  superior  greatness  of 
God's  grace,  as  compared  with  sin,  by  exclaiming  :  "  Much 
more  "  (ttoWCo  fidWov^  does  the  grace  of  God  surpass  the 
power  of  sin.  _Incidentally.  however^  Pail1  h^^  hpvp  givfin 
vjgjjje  iip^i^iTjjt  approach  to  a  theory  of  ^^  original  sin.^' — The 
pjissage  proceeds  upon  the  view  that  Adani-was-the  natural 
h^ad  of  the  race,  as  Christ  is  its  spiritujljiead.  Sin  began 
in  Adam's  transgression ;   and  since  death  was  to  be  the 

1  Le  Feche  et  la  Bedemption,  p.  16. 
2a 


~> 


354  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    PAUL 

penalty  of  sin  (Gen.  iii.  3),  death  entered  the  world  when 
sin  entered.  But  death  became  the  portion  of  all  men, 
even  of  those  who  sinned  before  the  Mosaic  law  was  given. 
Sin  must,  therefore,  have  been  universal.  What,  now,  was 
Paul's  view  of  the  connection  between  Adam's  trespass  and 
the  universality  of  sin  in  his  descendants  ? 

The  various  theological  theories  of  original  sin  have  been 

derived  from  different  interpretations  of  the  phrase,  "for 

that  all  sinned"  (e(^*  «  iravre^  rffxaprov).  ^The  principal— 

^oint  in  dispute  has  been  whether  " all  sinned "  means  ''all 

jgrmiefl  in    Arla^i   or  whp.n    A  flam    sinnprl  "  (^S_Jlghl    bj  the 

Augustinian  and  fMamL,ike.arie5-)^-i3r._that_iLaIl  indivi du- 
ally  and  personally  sjinxed "  (as  held  by  various  schools 
of  modern  theolog'y) .    The  differences  on  this  point  among 
I  critical  interpreters  is  as  great  as  among  dogmaticians.     If 
I  appeal  on  behalf  of  the  view  of  ''  modern  theology,"  that 
/  the  phrase  refers  to  personal  sin,  be  made  to  Weiss,  Weiz- 
siicker,  Pfleiderer,  Sabatier,  Lipsius,  and  Holtzmann,  these 
famous  names  can  be  easily  matched,  on  the  other  side,  by 
Meyer,  Godet,  Menegoz,  Bruce,  Beyschlag,  and  Bovon.     It 
is  impossible  to  determine  this  point  with  absolute  cer- 
tainty.    Although,  in  former  times,  it  was  thought  that  the 
greatest  doctrinal  consequences  hinged  upon  this  phrase,  it 
is  now  recognized  by  many  that  Paul's  main  thought  isL_iiat— 
^  so  essentially  affect^^l  b}^  ^hi«  rlifFAVPnPP  pf  i]-||f^^pvatqtmTi  as 
was  once  supposed.     In  any  case^he  passage  as  a  whole 
contains  the  idea  that  a  moral  corruption  or  deprayation 
pas&eiLdown  from  Adam  to  Jiis-descendantsj...  and  even  if 
Trdvre^  ij/jLapTov  refers  to  personal  sin,  it  probably  refers  to 
itjLS  illu^tmtingjhejm  bias  which 

the  parallel  assumes  to  have  coma  down  from  Adam.  The 
passage  as  a  whole  thus  presupposes  what  in  modern  terms 
we  call  the  transmission  of  sinful  tendencies  by  heredity. 
In  precisely  what  form  Paul  conceived  that  idea,  we  do  not 
know.  But  the  theological  significance  of  the  passage  lies 
in  its  recognition  of  the  significance  of  heredity  for  the 
moral  life  of  man.  Paul  could  no  more  have  had  in  mind 
the  notion  of  original  sin  which  is  contained  in  Augustinian 
realism,  derived  from  Plato's  philosophy,  or  the  later  notion 


ADAM   AND   THE   BACE  355 

of  Adam's  federal  headship,  developed  in  Holland  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  than  he  could  have  had  in  mind  the 
results  of  modern  inquiry  into  the  laws  of  heredity,  or 
the  speculations  which  underlie  the  theory  of  Julius  Miil- 
ler,  that  our  "  hereditary  sin  "  is  the  consequence  of  a 
personal  self -decision  made  in  a  pre-temporal  state.  Paul's 
thought  is  correctly  apprehended  when  we  recognize  his 
vivid  sense  of  the  power  of  sinful  character  and  his  emphatic 
assertion  that  sin  spreads  itself  abroad  and  intensifies  its 
power  in  human  life  by  means  of  our  race-connection.  Sin 
is  not  produced  de  novo  by  each  individual  for  himself,  as 
if  man  began  his  moral  life  in  a  state  of  perfect  equilibrium. 
On  the  contrary,  every  man  brings  with  him  into  the  world 
an  inheritance  of  tendencies  to  sin,  a  bias  towards  evil. 
With  that  every  life  is  weighted  from  its  beginning,  in  con- 
sequence of  its  connection  with  a  sinful  race  and  through 
the  operation  of  the  mysterious  power  of  heredity. 

But  in  spite  of  a  changed  view  of  the  theological  bear- 
ing of  our  passage  as  a  whole,  it  still  remains  an  interest- 
ing exegetical  question  whether  iravre^  rjixaprov  refers  to 
the  conscious  sinning  of  all  individuals,  or  to  some  kind 
of  constructive  or  collective  sin  which  is  conceived  of  as 
implicit  in  Adam's  transgression.  I  hold  this  latter  view, 
although  I  hold  it  in  a  form  essentially  different  from  the 
old  theological  theories.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
Paul__regards  sin  a,s  a  unit — a  principle  nf_which  all  con- 
^rete^ms  ara  but. an  expressioji  and_evidence.  By  Adam's 
transgression  this  principle  was  lodged  in  the  life  of  hu- 
manity. The  sinning  of  all  men  is  regarded  as  implicit  in 
the  sin  of  the  head  of  the  race. 

The  language  of  the  passage  shows  that  Paul's  thought 
is  :  All  sinned  when  Adam  sinned.  As  the  righteousness 
of  spiritual  humanity  is  derived  from  Christ,  so  the  sins 
of  natural  humanity  have  their  causal  principle  in  the 
sin  of  Adam.  Throughout  the  passage  stress  is  laid 
upon  the  transgression  of  Adam  as  the  cause  of  sin  in 
general  and  of  the  reign  of  death  :  "  As  through  one  man 
sin  entered  into  the  world  "  (y.  12)  ;  "the  judgment  came 
of  one  unto  condemnation"  (v.  16);  "if  by  the  trespass 


356  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

of  the  one  the  many  died"  (v.  17).  Now  if  we  suppose 
that  individual  sinning  is  meant  by  Traz^re?  rjixaprov^  then 
a  different  reason  for  the  universality  of  death  is  intro- 
duced from  that  emphasized  in  the  passage  elsewhere. 
Everywhere  else  death  is  said  to  have  entered  the  world 
through  the  sin  committed  by  Adam.  Is  it  likely  that  in 
TraVre?  rjixaprov  Paul  meant  to  give  a  different  reason  for 
its  universality,  namely,  the  universality  of  personal  sin  ? 
In  what  is  stated  in  the  passage  concerning  Christ  as  the 
author  of  righteousness,  nothing  is  said  of  personal  faith 
as  the  condition  of  its  appropriation.  The  aim  of  the 
passage  does  not  require  that  anything  should  be  said  of 
it.  It  is  wholly  unlikely  that  in  the  analogous  case  of 
Adam's  relation  to  the  sinful  race  anything  should  be  said 
of  personal  sin.  The  passage  is  dealing  with  two  princi- 
ples and  their  relation  to  their  respective  sources,  Adam 
and  Christ.  It  deals  neither  with  personal  sin  nor  with 
personal  faith. 

Jf  7rai/T6?  ruiapTov  refers  to  thp,  personal  sinning  of  all 
individuals,  the  statement  would  not  be  true.  The  phrase 
isHTnlended  "to^ive  the  reason  for  the  universal  reign  of 
death  :  "  And  so  death  passed  unto  all  men  (et?  iravra^ 
avOpdyrrovs:)  because  all  Qjrdvre^}  sinned."  Now,  millions 
of  infant  children  have  died  who  have  not  consciously  and 
personally  sinned.  How  could  Paul  assign  the  personal 
sinning  of  all  individuals  as  the  cause  of  their  death  in 
view  of  this  obvious  fact  ?  If  he  was  thinking  of  personal 
sin,  how  could  he  overlook  such  an  immense  and  signifi- 
cant exception  ?  It  is  arbitrary  in  the  extreme  to  take 
Trai/re?  in  any  narrower  sense  than  belongs  to  iravra^  in 

e  same  sentence.  It  is  certain  that  7rdvTa<;  denotes 
mankind  universallv-.  It  follows  that  irdvTe^  also  does, 
and  that  rjiiaprov  is  predicated  of  all  descendants  of  Adam. 
It  must  include  infants,  and  cannot  therefore  refer  to  con- 
scious, personal  sin,  since  they  have  not  consciously  and 
personally  sinned. 

But  what,  then,  did  the  apostle  mean  ?  Did  he,  after 
all,  hold  the  realistic  conception  of  human  nature,  that  all 
men  were  in  Adam,  that  all  wills  were  in  his  will,  and 


ADAM   AND   THE   RACE  357 

that  therefore  all  men  actually  participated  in  his  sin? 
Or  did  he  suppose  that  all  sinned  in  him  representatively 
or  putatively,  as  a  nation  might  stand  or  fall  with  the  acts 
of  its  representatives  ?  If  either  or  both  of  these  later 
modes  of  theological  thought  could  be  shown  to  have  had 
any  place  in  the  thought-world  of  Paul,  they  would  be 
entitled  to  serious  consideration.  But  this  is  not  the 
case.  The  key  to  Paul's  thought  in  regard  to  the  sinning 
of  all  men  when  Adam  sinned  is  found  in  his  own  oft- 
repeated  identification  of  the  believing  world  with  Christ  \ 
in  his  saving  deeds.     All  men  sinned  in  and  with  Adam     "^^^ 

'MSroiTagitur  de  peccato  singulorum  proprio.  Omnes  pec-  | 
carunt,  Adamo  peccante,  sicut  omnes  mortui  sunt,  salu-  j 
tariter,  moriente  Christo  (2  Cor.  v.  15)."  ^  The  principal  ' 
passages  which  illustrate  Paul's  view  are  :  "  Our  old  man 
was  crucified  with  him  " ;  "  If  we  died  (aTreOdvo/jiev)  with 
Christ,"  etc.  (Rom.  vi.  6,  8);  "One  died  for  all,  therefore 
all  died"  (ot  irdvre'^  cnreOavov,  2  Cor.  v.  15);  "If  ye  died 
(aireddvere)  with  Christ,"  etc.  (Col.  ii.  20);  "If  ye  were 
raised  together  with  Christ "  (Col.  iii.  1) ;  "  For  ye  died 
(aireOdvere)^  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God" 
(Col.  iii.  3)  ;  "  We  were  buried  therefore  with  him 
through  baptism  into  death;  that  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  from  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
so  we  also  might  walk  in  newness  of  life"  (Rom.  vi.  4). 
In  what  sense  did  the  believer  die  when  Christ  died  ? 
In  what  sense  did  he  rise  with  Christ  from  the  grave  ?  It 
is  evident  from  the  drift  and  purpose  of  the  passages 
where  these  expressions  occur  that  Paul  mystically  identi- 
fies the  believers  with  Christ  and  figuratively  describes 
the  process  of  salvation  in  the  Christian  man  in  terms  of 
the  saving  deeds  Avhich  procured  his  salvation.  In  and 
with  the  saving  deedsj— Christ's  death  and  resurrection 
—  the^alvntion  of  allbelievers  is  conceived  ot~g;5"~acTrom- 
plishedj^sg.tl''^^  ^^""^  bHifVing  world  is  described  as  dyirip^  "^^^ 
(to  sm)  when  Christ  died,  and  as  rising  with  him  to  / 
newness  of  life.  This  method  of  thought  is  the~supreme^ 
1  Bengel,  Gnomon  N.  T.,  in  loco,  Rom.  v.  12. 


358  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   PAUL 

example  of  Paul's  mysticism.^  We  may  say  that  the  be- 
lieving  world,  dies,  is  buried,  and  rises  with  Christ  in  a 
figurative  sense  if  we  understand  that  the  figure  is  based 
upon  real  relations  ;  that  the  moral  death  of  believers  to 
sin  is  conceived  of  as  having  its  cause  and  ground  in  the 
death  of  Christ  with  which  it  is  identified. ^  We  see  in 
these  representations  the  apostle's  way  of  expressing  his 
intense  sense  of  the  believer's  vital  relation  with  Christ. 
He  is  so  joined  to  Christ  that  he  is  described  as  passing 
through  those  experiences  of  Christ  in  which  his  saving 
work  culminates. 

In  an  analogous  sense  all_jafr^''  ^^^^  r^nrippivarl  of  as  sin- 
ning  when  Adam  sinned.  Natural  humanity  is  mystically 
identined  with  Adam^  This  representation  is  figfurative, 
■'Buta  great  reality  under]ies_the_figure^_  ^yiiat  that  real 
relation  of  prime\^al  sin"_to  all  jubsec^uent  sin  is7Paut" 
does  noTslaterelther  here  or  elsewhere.  But  it  is  evident 
from  our  passage  as  a  whole  that  the  apostle  considers 
our  sinfulness  to  have  a  hereditary  aspect ;  that  the  first 
sin  stands  in  some  causal  relation  to  sin  in  general, 
such  as  to  justify  him  in  figuratively  blending  them  to- 
gether in  a  single  inclusive  conception.  The  unity  and 
solidarity  of  the  race,  and  the  power  of  heredity  over  the 
moral  life  of  mankind,  are  the  thoughts  which  underlie  his 
mystical  identification  of  the  sin  of  all  men  with  the  trans- 

1  Cf.  The  Pauline  Theology,  pp.  32-43. 

2  We  should  naturally  expect  that  as  believers  are  conceived  of  as 
dying  to  sin  when  Christ  died  on  the  cross,  and  rising  to  holiness  when 
Christ  rose  from  the  tomb,  they  would  be  represented  as  also  buried  with 
him  in  the  grave.  But  Paul  has  not  carried  out  his  thought  in  this  way. 
The  reason  is  that  he  has  identified  the  idea  of  burial  into  a  moral  death 
to  sin  with  water-baptism  (Rom.  vi.  4).  Formally  considered,  this  repre- 
sentation stands  by  itself,  because  the  ethical  burial  and  its  consequent 
resurrection  to  newness  of  life  are  conceived  of  as  occurring,  not  when 
Christ  was  buried  and  rose,  but  when  the  believer  was  baptized.  Thus 
we  see  that  the  believer's  ethical  resurrection  is  (a)  identified  with  Christ's 
resurrection  (Col.  iii.  1),  and  (h)  conceived  as  occurring  when  the  believer 
is  raised  from  the  waters  of  baptism  (Rom.  vi.  4),  This  variation  from 
Paul's  usual  representation  shows  that  he  was  conscious  of  employing  a  . 
figure  or  analogy  which  need  not  be  developed  in  any  fixed  form.  Its 
real  import  was  that  believers  were  saved  by  Christ's  death  and  resurrec- , 
tion,  and  were  joined  to  him  in  a  living  fellowship. 


ADAM   AND   THE  RACE  359 

gression  by  which  sin  first  gained  entrance  to  the  world 
and  began  its  destructive  sway.  As  from  this  mystical 
identification  of  the  salvation  of  the  believing  world  with 
Christ  in  his  death  and  resurrection,  we  derive  the  idea 
of  a  real  relation  of  those  saving  deeds  to  the  believer's 
personal  righteousness,  so  from  a  similar  identification  of 
the  sinning  of  all  men  in  and  with  Adam's  sin,  theology 
should  deduce  the  principle  of  a  real  relation  of  individual 
sin  to  the  previous  sin  of  the  race,  through  heredity  —  a 
principle  to  which  modern  science  has  added  impressive 
emphasis. 

Paul  does  not  describe  men  as  guilty  for  that  inherited 
tendency  to  sin  or  vitiation  of  nature  which  they  derive 
from  their  connection  with  a  sinful  race.  The  old  theo- 
logical theories  which  held  that  man  was  by  nature  sinful 
and  guilty,  that  newly  born  children  were  blameworthy 
in  the  sight  of  God  and  objects  of  his  wrath,  found  sup- 
port for  such  a  view  in  Paul  only  by  unwarranted  exegesis. 
The  principal  proof-text  was  Eph.  ii.  3  :  "And  (we  Jews) 
were  by  nature  children  of  wrath  (reicva  (fivaei  6pyrj<i^^  even 
as  the  rest "  (the  Gentiles).  This  passage  was  understood 
to  affirm  that  all  human  beings  are  objects  of  God's 
wrath  from  the  moment  of  birth  in  consequence  of  original 
sin  and  native  depravity.  Meyer  has  abundantly  refuted 
this  interpretation,  and  many  other  recent  scholars  have 
adopted  substantially  the  view  which  he  advocated.^  I 
have  elsewhere  ^  given  my  reasons  for  rejecting  the  inter- 
pretation that  "Paulus  nos  cum  peccato  gigni  testatur, 
quemadmodum  serpentes  venenum  ex  utero  afferunt" 
(Calvin);  I  can  only  briefly  summarize  them  here.  It  is 
apparent  from  the  context  that  the  object  of  the  passage 
as  a  whole  is  to  describe  the  actual  sinfulness  of  the 
Gentile  world,  and  thus  to  show  from  what  great  deprav- 
ity the  readers  have  been  redeemed.  But  not  wishing  to 
excuse  the  Jewish  world,  Paul  throws  in  the  statement 
that  the  Jews  were  quite  as  bad  as  the  Gentiles.     The 

'    1  Among  them,  Weiss,  von  Soden,  and  T.  K.  Abbott.     See,  especially, 
the  latter's  Commentary,  in  loco^  in  the  International  Series. 
2  See  The  Pauline  Theology,  pp.  162-157. 


360  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

passage  is  quite  analogous  to  Rom.  i.  and  ii.  where,  after 
depicting  the  depravity  of  the  heathen,  he  turns  to  the 
Jews  and  charges  them  with  doing  the  same  things.  In 
both  cases  he  is  speaking  of  actual  sin.  It  is,  moreover, 
utterly  incredible  that  Paul  should  have  described  the 
Jewish  people,  the  branches  of  the  sacred  olive  tree  of  the 
theocracy  (ot  Kara  (jiixnv  /cXdBoi^  Rom.  xi.  21),  as  by  their 
very  birth  and  nature,  objects  of  God's  wrath.  If  this 
interpretation  is  correct,  it  is  no  wonder  that  it  is  regarded 
as  proof  that  Paul  could  never  have  written  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians.  It  is,  indeed,  quite  certain  that  he  never 
wrote  anything  which  stands  in  such  glaring  contradiction 
with  his  doctrine  of  the  "  holy  nation "  as  does  the  old 
dogmatic  interpretation  of  this  passage.  The  words  reKva 
(f>vaei  opyrj^  do  not  necessarily  mean  objects  by  birth  of 
God's  wrath.  ^vaL<;  may  mean  "growth"  as  well  as 
"birth."  It  may  refer  to  inheritance,  as  in  Gal.  ii.  15, 
or  to  the  development  of  the  voluntary  life,  as  when 
the  Gentiles  are  said  to  do  <t)vaec  ra  rov  vo/jlov  (Rom.  ii. 
14).  Further,  (f)vaeL  is  not  emphatic  in  our  passage  as 
the  interpretation  under  review  assumes.  The  passage, 
no  doubt,  presupposes  a  hereditary  taint,  but  it  does  not 
assert  that  before  and  apart  from  any  voluntary  action, 
and  on  the  basis  of  inheritance  alone,  human  beings  are 
objects  of  God's  wrath.  It  teaches  rather  that  Jews,  as 
well  as  Gentiles,  in  their  corrupt  pre-Christian  life,  were 
objects  of  God's  holy  displeasure.  "  The  word  ^ucret  refers 
to  their  natural  development  (as  in  Rom.  ii.  14),  and  pur- 
posely stands  after  re/cva^  because  to  them  belonged, 
through  divine  grace  and  calling,  the  sonship  to  God 
(Rom.  ix.  4),  in  virtue  of  which  they  remained  beloved 
of  God  (Rom.  xi.  28)  even  when  their  conduct  (Wandel) 
exposed  them  to  the  divine  wrath."  ^ 

As  a  result  of  our  review  it  appears  that  the  elements 
of  Paul's  doctrine  of  sin  are  as  follows:  (1)  Sin  does  not 
have  its  origin  and  ground  in  the  sensuous'  nature,  or 
in  any  metaphysical  limitation  of  man,  bui  injthe.-will. 
(2)  Sin  is  universal  and  guilty.  It  pervades  and  affects 
1  Weiss,  Die  paul.  Briefe,  in  loco^ 


ADAM   AND   THE   RACE  361 

all  man's  life  and  relations.  Paul  does  not,  however, 
teach  the  total  depravity  of  all  mankind.  All  men  are 
not  by  nature  "  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that  con- 
tinually." Even  the  heathen  may  "  show  the  work  of  the 
law  written  on  their  hearts,"  and  may,  at  least  in  some 
degree,  "do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  laAv  "  (Rom.  ii. 
14,  15),  that  is,  partially  conform  to  the  divine  will. 
(3)  Abias-iDW-ards-sin  is  propagated  by  heredity.  Men 
belong  to  a  sinful  race.  They  begin  life  with  a  predispo- 
sition to  evil.  Upon  each  life  is  entailed  a  moral  inheri- 
tance from  the  past.  The  sins  of  the  fathers  are  visited 
upon  the  children.  These  principles  are  not  shaken,  but 
confirmed,  by  the  results  of  science  and  by  the  subtlest 
speculations  of  ethical  philosophy  on  the  subject. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE  LAW   OF   GOD 

Paul's  doctrine  of  the  law  is  developed  mainly  from  a 
Christological  standpoint.  He  does  not  dwell  upon  the 
historic  purpose  and  use  of  the  law.  He  lays  the  greatest 
stress  upon  its  office  as^  preparatory  to  Christ.  •  Of  spe- 
cific points  under  this  general  topic  he  discusses  at  great- 
est length  the  relation  of  the  law  to  sin.  This  he  does  in 
order  to  show  how  the  law  served  to  quicken  the  con- 
sciousness and  reveal  the  true  nature  of  sin,  and  thus  to 
prepare  men  to  receive  the  gospel  of  redemption  through 
Christ.  ,--0 

In  setting  forth  this  relation,  Paul  employs  ^1)  ^  his- 
torical and  exegetical  argument  founded  upon  the  relation 
of  the  law  to  the  promise  given  to  Abraham  (Gal.  iii.  ; 
Rom.  iv.),  in  which  it  is  shown  that  the  principle  on 
which  Abraham  was  justified  was  that  of  faith.  The 
testimony  of  the  Old  Testament  was  that  Abraham 
believed  God,  and  his  faith  was  reckoned  to  him  for 
righteousness  (Rom.  iv.  3,  9).  On  the  basis  of  this  tes- 
timony Paul  asserts  that  the  promise  to  Abraham  did 
not  guarantee  its  blessing  to  him  and  to  his  seed  on  the 
ground  of  a  legal  obedience,  but  on  the  ground  of  a  right- 
eousness which  is  by  faith  (Rom.  iv.  13).  He  therefore 
concludes  that  the  way  to  acceptance  with  God  is  the  way 
of  faith,  and  that  the  validity  of  the  promises  made  of  old 
rests  upon  this  principle  (Rom.  iv.  16;  Gal.  iii.  21,  22). 
He  thus  traces  back  his  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of 
faith  and  of  justification  thereby  (Rom.  iv.  3,  5,  9,  22  ; 
cf.  Gen.  XV.  6)  with  historical  continuity  to  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham.  The  effect  of  this  argument  is  to 
show  that  the  law  had  its  main  purpose  in  reference  to  the 

362 


THE   LAW    OF    GOD  363 

Messianic  age  and  work.     Upon  its  use  as  a  present  power 
restraining  from  sin,  Paul  does  not  have  occasion  to  dwell. 
C(25"  He  employs  an  argument  based  upon  his  doctrine  of 
the  "cross.     The  postulate  with  which  he  starts  is  that  the 
cross  of  Christ  is  the  efficient  means  of  redemption.     But 
if  righteousness  were  attainable  by  deeds  of  the  law,  there 
would  not  only  be  another  way  of  salvation,  but  the  way  of 
the  cross  would  be  rendered  unnecessary  and  useless  (Gal. 
ii.  21 ;  V.  4).     But  by  the  supposition  this  is  impossible. 
The  way  by  the  law  must  therefore  be  shut,  and  the  way 
by  the  cross  remain  the  only  path  of  life  (Rom.  ix.  30-33). 
\  (3)  A  psychological  argument  is  also  employed  to  show 
how"^he  law  quickens   the   consciousness   of  sin,  makes 
transgressions  abound  (Rom.  iii.   20  ;  v.   20  ;   vii.  7-11), 
shuts  men  up  in  ward,  and  cuts  off  every  other  way  but 
that  of  faith  (Gal.  iii.  23  sq.).     The  first  of  these  three 
lines  of  proof  is  a  general  historical  argument,  the  second 
a  specihcally  Christological,  and  the  third  a  psychological 
argument.     This  analysis  gathers  up  the  principal  proofs 
by  which  the  positive  aspects  of  the  law's  preparatory  office 
are  set  forth. 

Its  negative  preparation  for  Christ  is  brought  out  in  an 
argument  showing  the  powerlessness  of  the  law  to  secure 
righteousness.  There  are  two  main  reasons  for  this  in- 
ability of  the  law :  (1)  its  external,  preceptive  character 
(2  Cor.  iii.  6-18  ;  Rom.  ii.  27-29 ;  vii.  6)  ;  (2)  the  car- 
nal nature  of  man  (Rom.  viii.  3-7).  Thus,  negatively, 
the  preparatory  purpose  of  the  law  is  shown  by  both  its 
subjective  and  its  objective  inability. 

Paul  uses  the  word  "law"  to  denote  the  Mosaic  law,  un- 
less otherwise  limited  or  defined.^  No/lio?  is  sometimes  used 
generically,  but  still  denotes  remotely  the  Mosaic  legisla- 
tion;  a i^o/^QSL-denotes  specifically  the  Mosaic  law.  A  few 
passages  may  be  taken  as  representative  :  Rom.  ii.  14, 
where  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  only  are  under  consideration. 
The  Gentiles  "  have  not  the  law  "  (/jltj  v6/jlov  exovra) ;  the 
Jews  have  the  law.     Here  the  Mosaic  law  must  be  meant 

1  As,  e.<7.,  in  Gal.  vi.  2,  rhv  vbixov  rod  Xpi<rToO;  Rom.  ii.  14,  iavroTs  dalv 
vbfxos. 


364  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    PAUL 

in  both  cases,  though  in  one  the  reference  is  generic,  in 
the  other  specific.  Rom.  v.  13  :  "  For  until  the  law  (axpt 
vofjLov}  sin  was  in  the  world,  but  sin  is  not  reckoned  where 
there  is  no  law"  (jurj  6vto<;  vofxov^.  Here  appear  both  the 
more  specific  and  the  more  general  use  of  the  word  with- 
out the  article.  Rom.  vii.  7  :  "  What  shall  we  say  then  ? 
Is  the  law  (o  z^o/xo?)  sin?  God  forbid.  Nay,  I  had  not 
known  sin  but  by  the  law"  (el  firj  Bca  vo/jlov').  These 
passages  will  fairly  illustrate  Paul's  use  of  the  word 
"law."  They  show  that  in  cases  where  he  does  not  use 
it  as  a  simple  equivalent  for  the  Mosaic  law,  and  seems  to 
speak  of  law  in  general,  he  still  has  the  Mosaic  legislation 
in  mind.  Sometimes  he  speaks  of  this  law  specifically, 
sometimes  generically.^  The.la,w  was  for  Paul  the  con- 
crete embodiment  of  the  divine  will.  It  would  not  how- 
ever follow  that  the  Mosaic  law  exhausted  the  conception 
of  moral  law  for  his  mind.  He  recognizes  moral  law  as 
existins:  where  the  Torah  was  not  known.  The  heathen 
had  a  law  —  a  moral  rule  of  life  —  revealed  in  their  own 
hearts  and  consciences.  When  the  Mosaic  system  was 
done  away,  the  moral  government  of  God  was  not  im- 
paired. On  the  contrary,  God's  moral  will  was  all  tlie 
more  plainly  revealed  to  those  who  received  Christ. 
When  circumcision  disappeared,  the  substance  of  "  God's 
commandments"  yet  remained  and  were  still  to  be  kept 
(1  Cor.  vii.  19).  Thus  while  we  see  that  Paul  did  not 
formally  distinguish  the  written  law  from  the  moral  law 
in  general,  he  did  practically  regard  the  latter  as  more 
comprehensive  than  the  former  —  as  a  system  of  which  the 
Torah  was  an  adequate  but  not  exhaustive  expression. 

It  follows  that  by  "the  law"  Paul  denotes  the  whole 
Mosaic  code.  Whatever,  therefore,  he  teaches  in  regard 
to  "the  law"  at  all,  applies  to  the  whole  system,  not  to 
an  element  or  phase  of  the  system  arbitrarily  selected. 
Paul's  theology  of  the  law  has  been  too  often  interpreted 

1  "  Quand  Paul  parle  de  la  Loi,  ce  n'est  done  la  loi  morale  abstraite, 
c'est  la  legislation  mosai'que  qu'il  a  en  vue."  M^n^goz,  Le  Peche,  etc. 
p.  98.  The  whole  chapter  (iv.)  by  M^n^goz,  on  Le  Peche  et  la  Loi,  is 
admirable. 


THE   LAW    OF    GOD  365 

by  means  of  unwarranted  divisions  within  the  law  itself. 
But  we  can  be  certain  from  the  use  of  the  word  that 
whatever  he  teaches  in  regard  to  the  purpose  and  present 
validity  of  the  law,  he  teaches  in  regard  to  its  totality. 
"  The  traditional  division  of  the  law  of  Moses  into  moral, 
ceremonial,  and  juristic  laws  may  serve  to  facilitate  a 
general  view  of  theocratic  ordinances  ;  but  it  is  incorrect 
if  it  seeks  to  express  a  distinction  within  the  law,  and  to 
claim  various  dignity  for  its  various  parts."  ^  It  does  not 
follow,  however,  from  what  has  been  said  that  the  law 
denotes  for  Paul  merely  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch. 
It  includes  these  as  its  primary  element,  but  for  Paul  the 
whole  Old  Testament  was  conceived  as  constituting  a  single 
code.  Hence,  when  he  wishes  to  prove  something  to  "those 
who  are  under  the  law  "  from  what  "  the  law  saith,"  the 
passages  which  he  quotes  in  evidence  are  not  taken  from 
the  Pentateuch  at  all  but  from  Isaiah  and  the  Psalms 
(Rom.  iii.  10-19). 

Paul  asserts  in  the  strongest  terms  that  the  law  is 
divine  in  its  origin,  and  in  its  nature,  "  holy,  just,  and 
good"  (Rom.  vii.  12).  It  was  "ordained  by  angels  in 
the  hand  of  a  mediator"  (Gal.  iii.  19) 2;  it  is  "spiritual" 
(Rom.  vii.  14),  that  is,  of  divine  origin.  In  his  elaborate 
argument  showing  the  relation  of  the  law  to  sin,  he  is 
careful  to  guard  against  the  misconception  that  the  sin- 
fulness which  the  law  quickens  and  occasions  is  due  to 
any  moral  defect  in  the  law  itself  :  "  Is  the  law  sin  ? 
God  forbid  ! "  (Rom.  vii.  7).  So,  also  m  his  argu- 
ment showing  the  inadequacy  of  the  legal  dispensation  to 

1  Oehler,  Old  Testament  Theology,  I.  264. 

2  This  reference  to  the  mediation  of  angels  and  of  Moses  in  the  giving 
of  the  law  is  not  designed  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  law  was  made  by 
intermediaries  and  was  therefore  inferior  and  transitory,  as  Ritschl 
holds.  The  law  is  not  less  truly  divine  in  its  origin  on  account  of  this 
mediation  ;  it  occupies  an  essential  place  in  the  plan  of  God.  But  Paul 
regards  it  as  less  absolute  than  the  promise  which  was  spoken  directly  to 
Abraham.  With  the  fact  that  it  was  given  less  directly  than  was  the 
covenant  with  Abraham,  Paul  associates  the  idea  that  it  was  secondary 
and  subordinate.  In  giving  the  promise  God  stands  alone  and  speaks 
directly  ;  in  giving  the  law  he  acted  mediately.  The  former  is  absolute  ; 
the  latter  is  relative. 


366  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  made  to  Abraham,  he  is 
careful  to  urge  that  there  is  no  opposition  between  the 
legal  system  and  the  gospel  of  faith  preached  beforehand 
to  him  (Gal.  iii.  8)  :  ''  Is  the  law  then  against  the 
promises  of  God?  God  forbid  ! 'H  (Gal.  iii.  21).  The 
dispensation  of  the  law  is,  indeecl,  subordinate  to  the 
covenant  of  promise,  but  so  far  from  being  in  opposition 
to  it,  it  has  its  ideal  end  in  the  fulfilment  of  that  cove- 
nant. The  law  is  intermediate  between  the  ancient 
covenant  and  the  completed  gospel,  —  between  the  prom- 
ise and  the  fulfilment.  It  was  a  divinely  appointed 
means  of  revealing  human  need  and  of  hastening  its 
satisfaction.  We  thus  see  how  completely  is  the  law 
auxiliary  to  the  gospel  of  grace  and  faith  in  the  historic 
development  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

It  belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  statute  law  to  restrain 
transgression  by  ordaining  penalties.  The  Mosaic  law 
aimed  to  check  sin,  promote  morality,  and  secure  righteous- 
ness. It  did  this  by  presenting  motives  to  obedience  : 
"  Ye  have  seen  how  I  bare  you  on  eagles'  wings  and 
brought  you  unto  myself"  (Ex.  xix.  4).  The  Decalogue 
is  thus  prefaced  :  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God  who  brought 
thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage" 
(Ex.  XX.  2).  The  excellence  and  fitness  of  the  law  are 
commended  to  the  people  (Deut.  iv.  6-8).  The  motives 
to  obedience  are  both  positive,  being  drawn  from  appeals 
backward  to  God's  care  and  guidance,  and  forward  to  the 
promises  ;  and  negative,  being  founded  u23on  threats  and 
penalties.  The  law  has  a  restraining,  regulative  power. 
It  has  more  than  a  negative  force.  It  seeks  more  than 
outward  conformity  ;  it  insists  upon  a  right  disposition  of 
heart ;  morality  as  well  as  legality.  Though  itself  external 
to  man,  it  is  a  grav^  mistake  to  suppose  that  it  required 
only  external  obedience.  What  it  was  able  to  secure 
is  another  question.  But  such,  in  brief,  was  the  historic 
aim  of  the  law  for  the  time  then  present,  as  apprehended 
by  the  Jews  themselves. 

At  first  sight  it  appears  strange  that  Paul  has  not  devel- 
oped this  idea  of  the  law,  but  rather  a  view  of  it  which 


THE  LAW   OF   GOD  367 

almost  seems  contradictory  to  this.     How  different  would 
have  been  his  treatment  of  the  law  while  still  a  zealous  and 
devout  Jew!     In  what  a  different  light  does  he  see  the 
whole  subject  from  his  new  standpoint !     He  now  looks   , 
wholly  beyond  the  immediate  aim  of  the  law  for  the  Jew,    Vo 
and  sees  it  onl}^  in  its  relations  to  the  gospel.     The  whole    ") 
subject  is  therefore  treated  by  Paul  with  a  purely  Chris- 
tological  purpose.     Thischange  is  an  impressive  illustra-  j 
tion  of  the  radical  revolutioni;vhich  his  modes  of  religious  ] 
thought  must  have  undergone.     That  Avhich  once  held  for 
him  the  highest  place  in  veneration  and  esteem  he  never 
ceases  to  honor,  but  its  chief  glory  now  is  that  it  was  a 
means  of  ushering  in  the  new  "  ministration  of  the  spirit." 
Henceforth  for  the  apostle  the  glory  of  the  law  must  ever 
pale  before  the  brighter  and  more  enduring  glory  of  the 
new  "  mhustration  of  righteousness"  (2  Cor.  iii.  8-11). 

Some  writers  on  the  Pauline  theology  maintain  that 
Paul  not  only  fails  to  consider  the  historic  purpose  of  the 
law  to  check  transgression  and  secure  morality,  but  that  he 
teaches,  to  the  exact  contrary,  that  the  law  was  given  to 
increase  sin.  Pfleiderer  strongly  emphasizes  the  sharp 
antithesis  between  the  Jewish,  or  historic,  and  the  Pauline, 
or  Christological,  purpose  of  the  law,  and  asserts  that, 
according  to  Paul,  the  law  was  not  given  to  check  sin  but 
to  increase  it.^ 

This  point  will  be  discussed  subsequently.  We  have 
already  granted  that  Paul  nowhere  dwells  upon  the  histori- 
cal idea  of  the  law  ;  but  are  there  no  incidental  traces  of  , 
this  idea  in  the  Pauline  epistles  ?  Such  traces  seem  to  be 
found  in  the  following  passages  :  Rom  vii.  10,  "  The  com- 
mandment which  was  unto  life  "  (ordained  unto  or  aimed 
at  [securing]  life,  77  ivrokr]  7]  eU  ^(or/v,  sc.  ova-ay-,  Rom.  -^ 
viii.  3,  4  :  "  For  what  the  law  could  not  do,"  etc.,  God  did, 
in  order  that  "  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  ful- 
filled in  us  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  spirit." 
"  The  righteousness  of  the  law  "  is  the  righteousness  which 
the  law  contemplates  and  seeks  to  secure,  though  for  reasons 
to  be  separately  considered  it  was  not  able  to  secure  it. 
1  Der  Paiiliiiismus,  p.  92  sq.  2  qj-^  Meyer,  in  loco. 


368  THE  THEOLOGY   OF  PAUL 

If  it  be  said  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  is  only  the 
righteousness  which  the  law  demanded,  it  is  admitted ; 
but  we  cannot  suppose  that  Paul  conceived  of  God  as  in- 
stituting a  system  making  certain  demands  upon  men,  and 
comprehending  in  itself  no  purpose  and  no  means  of 
securing  the  fulfilment  of  the  demands.  The  righteousness 
of  the  law  is  the  righteousness  which  the  author  of  the 
law  contemj^lated  and  purposed  to  secure,  so  far  as  a  legal 
system  can  be  designed  and  adapted  to  secure  such  a  re- 
sult. From  these  phrases  it  is  apparent  that  the  language 
of  1  Timothy  on  this  point  is  not  un-Pauline  :  "  The  law 
(yofio^^  is  not  made  for  a  righteous  man,  but  for  the  law- 
less and  unruly;  for  the  ungodly  and  sinners,"  etc.  (i.  9). 
The  meaning  here  is  that  the  law  was  given  to  restrain 
the  lawless  and  disobedient ;  to  check  tendencies  which 
are  not  according  to  "  sound  teaching  "  and  the  "  glorious 
gospel"  (i.  9-11).  It  cannot  be  maintained  that  Paul 
meant  to  say  that  the  law  was  given  to  increase  the  wicked- 
ness of  these  classes  of  persons.  The  j)eculiar  Pauline  doc- 
trine of  the  purpose  of  the  law  as  quickening  the  sense  of 
sin  does  not  here  come  into  view.  This  passage  is  not  a 
theological  argument,  but  a  piece  of  practical,  moral  instruc- 
tion. On  this  point,  then,  the  substance  of  the  Pauline 
doctrine  is :  Have  love,  which  is  the  one  word  in  which 
the  whole  laAv  is  fulfilled  (Gal.  v.  14),  and  then  you  will 
not  be  under  the  law,  for  it  is  not  made  for  the  righteous 
—  to  regulate  his  life  or  threaten  him  for  disobedience  — 
but  for  sinners.  Love  is  "  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,"  and 
he  who  is  ruled  by  love  has  within  him  the  principle  of 
righteousness  which  the  law  aims  to  secure  (Rom.  xiii. 
8-10).  The  divine  design  of  the  law  during  the  period 
of  its  validity  was  to  secure  obedience  by  threatening  and 
checking  transgressions.  This  is  not  equivalent  to  saying 
that  it  had  power  to  justify.  It  could  hold  out  induce- 
ments to  righteousness,  but  could  not  secure  the  obedient 
heart.  This  impotence  or  inadequacy  of  the  law  forms 
the  transition  from  the  Jewish  to  the  unique  Pauline  idea 
of  the  law  in  its  relation  to  sin.  Hence  we  consider  next 
the  failure  of  the  law  to  secure  righteousness. 


THE   LAW   OF    GOD  369 

We  have  already  touched  upon  its  external,  preceptive 
character.  It  was  a  "  ministration  of  death,  written  and 
engraven  on  stones"  (2  Cor.  iii.  7).  It  could  not  secure 
its  own  ideal  end,  because  it  was  not  a  spiritual  power.  It 
could  punish  disobedience,  induce  to  outward  conformity, 
and  even  by  motives  and  promises  induce  to  obedience,  but 
these  combined  results  did  not  constitute  a  perfect  right- 
eousness, and  could  not,  therefore,  fulfil  the  conditions  of  a 
justification  to  be  received  on  the  basis  of  debt,  not  of  grace. 
And  here  appears  the  greatest  obstacle  of  all  to  the  secur- 
ing of  righteousness  by  the  law.  It  was  powerless  against 
the  sinful,  fleshly  nature  of  man  (Rom.  viii.  3).  As  an 
outward  '^  letter "  (to  jpdfjLfMa^  and  as  elementary  (ra 
aroLxela  rov  fcoafjLOv^  Gal.  iv.  3,  9  ;  Col.  ii.  8,  20)  it  was 
weak  "through  the  flesh"  (Bta  rrj^  aapKo^')^  that  is,  un- 
able to  cope  with  the  power  of  sinful  desire  —  weak  in 
comparison  with  the  power  of  the  flesh.  This  argument, 
like  those  that  have  preceded  it,  tends  to  establish  the 
Christological  aim  of  the  law.  It  could  not,  in  view  of 
this  inadequacy,  be  a  finality.  It  must  be  a  system  sub- 
ordinate to  the  principle  of  salvation  by  grace  on  condition 
of  faith,  a  principle  which  existed  before  the  law,  and  for 
the  more  complete  revelation  and  realization  of  which  the 
law  was  given.  The  legal  principle  is  :  "  He  that  doeth 
them  shall  live  by  them  "  (Rom.  x.  5  ;  Gal.  iii.  12)  ;  but 
''  the  carnal  mind  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God  ;  neither, 
indeed,  can  be  "  (Rom.  viii.  7).  Hence,  the  way  by  deeds 
of  the  law  is  shut,  and  only  the  way  of  grace  and  faith  is 
left.  ^^ 

We  are  thus  led  to  consider  the  purpose  of  the  law  in 
its  relation  to  sin.  Paul  teaches  that  the  purpose  of  the 
law  was  to  quicken  the  consciousness  and  intensify  the 
power  of  sin.  This  idea  was  unknown  to  Jewish  theology. 
The  Jewish  and  the  Pauline  ideas,  which  seem  so  radically 
different,  had  each  its  element  of  essential  truth.  The 
former  was  correct  historically,  the  latter  ideally.  The 
first  step  in  the  development  of  sin  by  the  law  is  seen  in 
the  fact  that  "by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin  "  (Rom. 
iii.  20).  The  law  reveals  sin  as  transgression.  "I  had 
2b 


370  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    PAUL 

not  known  sin  but  by  the  law  ;  for  I  had  not  known  lust 
except  the  law  had  said :  Thou  shall  not  covet "  (Rom. 
vii.  7).  The  sin  existed  before  the  law  came,  but  was 
not  definitely  and  consciously  known  as  such.  "  For 
until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world,  but  sin  is  not  imputed 
(reckoned  as  such)  where  there  is  no  law"  (Rom.  v.  13). 
By  the  revelation  of  sin  in  its  true  character  the  law 
becomes  a  ministration  of  death.  By  revealing  sin  as 
transgression  of  divine  right  it  "  works  wrath  "  to  the  dis- 
obedient (Rom.  iv.  13).  Thus  "sin  by  the  commandment 
becomes  exceeding  sinful"  (Rom.  vii.  13).  In  this  way 
sin  is  defined.  Men  see  themselves  in  the  mirror  of  divine 
law  as  guilty.  The  law  becomes  the  occasion  by  which 
sin  really  intensifies  its  power  in  human  life.  "  The  law 
entered  that  the  offence  might  abound  "  (Rom.  v.  20  ;  cf. 
Gal.  iii.  19).  "  Without  the  law  sin  was  dead.  I  was 
alive  without  the  law  once  ;  but  when  the  commandment 
came  sin  revived,  and  I  died"  (Rom.  vii.  8,  9).  Thus 
the  law  became  the  "strength  of  sin"  (1  Cor.  xv.  bQ'). 

It  is  important,  in  this  connection,  to  distinguish  be- 
tween dfiapTLa  and  Trapd/Sacrtf;.  The  former  is  sin  con- 
sidered as  a  principle  ;  the  latter  is  the  manifestation  of 
sin  in  specific  acts.  The  law  calls  out  the  principle  of 
sin  into  increased  expression  in  action.  It  provokes  a 
reaction  of  sinful  desire  against  itself  and  thus  increases 
transgressions.  "The  law  was  added  (to  the  promise) 
because  of  transgressions"  (irapa^daewv  %a/3iz^.  Gal.  iii.  19), 
that  is,  in  favor  of  transgressions,  in  order  to  multiply 
them.  "  The  law  came  in  alongside  (of  the  reign  of  sin 
and  death  1)  that  the  trespass  might  abound"  (Rom.  v.  20), 
that  is,  that  the  trespass  of  Adam  might,  as  it  were,  repeat 

1  Interpreters  differ  as  to  the  force  of  irapeKrrjXdev.  Some  render :  "  It 
entered  alongside  of  sin"  (Meyer,  Weiss)  ;  others:  "It  entered  paren- 
thetically, that  is,  between  Adam  and  Christ"  (von  Soden,  Sanday). 
Pfleiderer  renders :  "It  entered  between  sin  and  redemption,  as  a  means 
to  the  end  of  the  latter"  {Paulinismus,  p.  101).  In  any  case,  the  law  is 
regarded  as  intervening  in  an  era  of  sinfulness  to  make  sin's  real  nature 
and  power  apparent,  and  so  to  aid  in  preparing  the  way  for  a  gracious 
deliverance  from  it.  The  law  helped  to  show  the  depth  and  power  of  the 
sinful  principle  by  multiplying  its  expressions  in  transgressions. 


THE   LAW   OF    GOD  371 

itself  in  the  lives  of  men.  Thus  the  law  increased  the 
consciousness  of  sin  —  showed  sin  to  be  such  —  and  also 
increased  its  expression  as  transgression.  We  can  now 
see  in  what  sense  the  law  "increased  sin."  It  sharpened 
the  sinful  self-consciousness  by  revealing  sin  as  such. 
Thus  relatively  to  man's  previous  consciousness  of  sin, 
it  increased  it.  Besides  this,  it  became  by  its  restraint 
the  occasion  of  increasing  the  violence  and  expression  of 
sinful  desire.  "  Nitimur  in  vetitum  semper,  cupim usque 
negata"  (Ovid).  But  the  law  did  not  causally  increase 
sin.  It  became  the  occasion  of  its  development  into  new 
strength.  According  to  Rom.  vii.  8,  it  is  sin,  not  the 
law,  which  "wrought  all  manner  of  desire."  Sin  was 
the  cause  of  this  desire,  the  law  only  the  occasion  of  its 
development,  j  Paul's  argument  here  is  briefly  this  :  The 
commandmenir^vas  unto  life,  —  had  life  as  its  end  and 
aim,  —  but  by  reason  of  the  hold  which  sin  had  upon  my 
nature,  it  only  served  to  reveal  me  to  myself,  and  to  con- 
vict me  of  guilt  before  God ;  and  thus  what  was  meant 
to  be  unto  life  I  found  to  be  unto  death.  The  law  then 
pronounced  the  death  sentence  on  me  (vii.  9),  and  showed-,™ 
me  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ  as  my  only  hope  (vii.  25). _/ 
That  the  law  caused  a  positive  increase  of  sin,  considered 
as  a  principle  inherent  in  human  life,  Paul  does  not  teach. 
The  action  of  the  law  upon  men  was  like  that  of  all  the 
influences  and  agencies  of  God's  grace  upon  those  who 
persist  in  sin.  The  gospel  message  itself  becomes  a 
"savour  of  death  unto  death"  to  those  who  reject  it 
(2  Cor.  ii.  16).  Truth  hardens  the  heart  that  spurns  it. 
Moral  law  develops  character  into  definiteness  in  both 
directions. 

The  argument  which  proves  that  the  law  intensified  sin 
also  shows  how  it  became  a  negative  means  of  salvation 
by  sharpening  the  need  and  longing  for  redemption.  In 
the  redemptive  work  of  Christ,  therefore,  the  law  finds  its 
fulfilment.  The  law  aims  at  life  by  pointing  to  Christ, 
who  alone  can  give  it.  The  historic  aim  is  secured  in  the 
principle  of  love,  which  is  "  the  end  of  the  commandment "; 
its  ideal  aim  is  secured  in  Christ,  who  accomplishes  for 


372  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

the  believer  what  the  law  could  not  aceomplish  —  its  just 
requirement  (BiKaicofxa^  Rom.  viii.  4).  Thus  the  Christo- 
logical  and  historic  purposes  meet  and  blend,  since  Christ 
brings  in  the  perfect  gospel  of  love.  In  him,  therefore, 
the  apparent  antinomy  is  solved.  The  law  requires  right- " 
eousness  and  shows  the  sinner  the  depths  of  his  sin,  not 
to  leave  him  in  despair,  but  rather  to  lead  him  humbled 
and  penitent  to  Christ,  that  God  may  receive  him  through 
faith.  Paul's  philosophy  of  the  law  is  most  succinctly  set 
forth  in  Gal.  ii.  19  :  "  For  I  through  the  law  died  unto  the 
law,  that  I  might  live  unto  God."  The  apostle  died  to 
the  law  ethically ;  he  broke  off  all  relations  to  the  law  as 
a  supposed  means  of  salvation.  Compare  Rom.  vii.  4, 
where  death  to  the  law  is  illustrated  by  the  dissolution  of 
the  marriage-bond  by  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties. 
But  how  did  he  die  to  the  law  %  means  of  the  law  P  The 
answer  is  found  in  full  in  Rom.  vii.  7  sq.  The  law  had 
shown  him  his  sin  and  his  guilt.  It  had  put  him  to 
death  ethically.  It  had  slain  his  self-righteousness.  This 
was  a  severe,  but,  in  its  ultimate  result,  a  saving  process. 
The  law  had  prepared  him  to  receive  Christ.  It  had 
taught  him  the  inadequacy  of  all  his  "works,"  and  had 
led  him  to  accept  a  gracious  salvation.  He  thus  broke 
off  all  relations  to  the  law  and  fled  to  Christ  for  salva- 
tion, and  it  was  the  law  itself  which,  when  he  clearly  saw 
its  requirements,  proved  a  powerful  incentive  urging  him 
to  do  this.  Thus  the  law,  by  showing  him  his  sinfulness 
and  helplessness,  was  a  means  of  driving  him  to  Christ. 
Hence,  through  the  law,  he  became  as  a  dead  man  to  the 
law  —  ceased  to  regard  it  as  a  saving  institute  —  and  was 
pointed  to  the  spiritual  life  graciously  offered  in  Christ, 
in  whose  fellowship  he  found  joy  and  peace.  The  law 
had  slain  him,  but  it  was  only  that  Christ  might  make 
him  alive.  He  forsook  the  law  forever,  but  only  that  he 
might  become  "  under  law  to  Christ "  (eWoyito?  XpLcrru), 
1  Cor.  ix.  21). 1 

1  "  The  law  had  wrought  in  me  the  infinite  consciousness  of  sin,  and  the 
sense  that,  do  what  I  would,  the  fulfilment  of  its  requirements  was  im- 
possible.    It  was  a  state  of  death,  but  of  death  unto  life.'"     Jowett,  The 


THE   LAW    OF    GOD  373 

From  this  view  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  law  it 
follows  as  an  inevitable  consequence  that  the  Mosaic  law 
does  not  retain  under  Christianity  the  same  prescriptive 
moral  authority  which  belonged  to  it  before.  It  is  com- 
pleted in  the  gospel.  All  its  elements  of  permanence  are 
taken  up  into  Christianity,  which  is  complete  in  itself  and 
does  not  need  to  be  supplemented  from  any  previous  in- 
complete stage  of  revelation.  This  view  does  not  rest  foi* 
its  support  upon  any  single  passage  or  set  of  passages. 
It  runs  through  the  whole  Pauline  conception  of  the 
relation  of  the  two  dispensations.  A  few  passages  may 
be  quoted  in  illustration  :  Gal.  iii.  19,  24,  25 ;  "  What 
then  is  the  law  ?  It  was  added  because  of  transgressions, 
till  the  seed  should  come  to  whom  the  promise  hath  been 
made.  So  that  the  law  hath  been  our  tutor  to  bring  us 
unto  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  faith.  But 
now  that  faith  is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  tutor." 
The  law  was  designed  to  train  the  people  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  their  own  sinfulness,  and  by  its  severe  discipline 
"to  humble  the  proud  to  desire  Christ's  aid"  (Luther). 
Rom.  X.  4 :  ''  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  unto  right- 
eousness to  every  one  that  believeth."  The  best  inter- 
preters agree  that  reXo^;  vo/jlov  here  is  literally  the  end, 
the  completion,  and  that  the  meaning  of  this  passage  is 
that  the  validity  of  the  law  has  come  to  an  end  in  Christ. 
2  Cor.  iii.  11 :  "  For  if  that  which  passeth  away  was  glori- 
ous, much  more  that  which  remaineth  is  glorious  ;  "  Col. 
ii.  16, 17  :  "  Let  no  man  judge  you  in  meat  or  in  drink,  or 
in  respect  of  a  holyday,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the 
sabbath  days,  which  are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come ; 
but  the  body  is  Christ ; "  Rom.  vi.  15  :  "We  are  not  under 
law,  but  under  grace."  According  to  Paul,  revelation  is 
complete  in  Christ.  The  gospel  is  lacking  in  nothing  that 
was  of  permanent  value  in  the  law.  God  has  taken  away 
the  first ;  he  has  established  the  second.  He  has  com- 
pleted the  old  in  the  new,  as  the  blossom  is  completed  in 
the  fruit.     The  law  wdll  always  be  worthy  of  all  honor. 

Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  in  loco,  Gal.  ii.  19.     Similarly  Lightfoot  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  passage. 


374  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

but  its  chief  glory  must  ever  be  that  it  served  to  usher  in 
the  gospel  (2  Cor.  iii.  9-11),  and  to  prove  to  humanity  a 
TraiBajcoyb^;  ek  ILpLcrTov  (Gal.  iii.  24).^ 

1  M^n^goz  (op.  cit.,  p.  123)  sums  up  the  various  points  of  view  in 
wliich  Paul  presents  his  special  theory  of  the  law,  thus :  The  law  was 
given  (1)  to  increase  transgressions  (Trapa^da-eojv  xd/)t;/);  (2)  to  lead  to 
faith  (ets  wia-Ttv) ;  (3)  to  conduct  to  Christ  (ets  XpLarov),  and  (4)  to  give  life 
(els  ^oj-qv).  These  are  but  different  expressions  of  the  same  fundamental 
notion.  Thus  the  formally  contradictory  assertions  respecting  the  law, 
when  seen  in  their  true  light,  present  the  same  conception  of  the  law's 
character  and  end  under  different  aspects. 

On  the  whole  subject  I  would  also  refer  to  the  interesting  monograph 
of  Grafe,  Die  paulinisclie  Lehre  vom  Geseta  nach  den  vier  Hauptbriefen, 
2te  Aufl.,  1893. 


CHAPTER   V 

THE  DIVINE  PURPOSE 

We  have  seen  that  the  law  was  but  one  —  and  that  a 
subordinate  one  —  of  the  dispensations  of  God.  It  was 
one  of  the  methods  of  the  divine  grace  —  one  of  the  vari- 
ous means  by  which  God  sought  to  realize  his  purpose  of 
salvation.  Its  aim  and  operation  were  really  embraced 
within  the  scope  of  that  primeval  gospel,  that  gracious 
action  of  God  by  which,  from  the  beginning  of  human  sin, 
he  had  been  seeking  to  reconcile  the  world  to  himself. 
Rom.  iv.  and  Gal.  iii.  are  the  passages  in  which  this 
thought  is  most  fully  developed.  The  principle  of  grace^ 
was  operative  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  long  before  the^ 
law  came  into  being.  Faith  and  grace  are  the  marks  of 
that  gospel  which  is  contained  in  the  promise  to  Abraham. 
Thus  the  gospel,  in  its  essential  elements,  antedates  the 
law.  It  has  its  basis  in  the  mercy  of  God,  and  is  as  old 
as  human  sin  and  human  needs.  The  law  came  in  long  i 
afterwards,  not  to  serve  any  ends  of  its  own,  but  to  ! 
serve  the  ends  of  the  divine  grace.  It  never  changed  the  \ 
conditions  of  salvation  which  are  involved  in  the  very 
nature  of  the  relation  between  the  holy  God  and  sinful 
man.  It  was  only  an  incentive  to  man  to  fulfil  the  con- 
ditions of  a  gracious  salvation.  By  making  sin  "  exceed- 
ing sinful,"  and  demonstrating  to  man  his  own  helplessness, 
the  law  constrained  him  to  fly  to  God's  mercy  as  his  only 
hope.  Thus  the  law,  rightly  understood,  is  no  rival  of 
the  gospel,  but  a  method  of  God  adapted  to  open  men's 
eyes  to  their  need  of  the  gospel.  The  law  does  not  make 
void  the  promise ;  faith  does  not  destroy  the  law.  Both 
contemplated  essentially  the  same  method  of  salvation. 
In  its  own  way  the  law  prepared  men  for  Christ.     By 

375 


376  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   PAUL 

such  considerations  the  apostle  proves  the  inner  unity  and 
harmony  of  the  Liw  and  the  gospeL  The  gospel  was  be- 
fore the  law,  and  underlies  and  embraces  it.  The  law 
contemplates  the  ends  of  the  gospel,  and  is  a  providential 
aid  in  promoting  them. 

Thus  a  consideration  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  law 
leads  us  to  the  study  of  that  divine  purpose  of  grace  which 
underlies  the  gospel,  and  is  the  motive  of  the  whole  his- 
tory of  redemption-  This  idea  of  the  divine  purpose  re- 
ceived a  strong  emphasis  from  Paul.  He  shared  that 
intense  and  living  sense  of  God  and  of  his  causal  efficiency 
which  was  characteristic  of  the  Hebrew  mind  God's  ac- 
tion is  the  expression  of  his  purpose.  The  work  of  sal- 
vation is  the  realization  of  a  gracious  plan  which  lay  in 
the  mind  of  God  before  the  world  was.  Sometimes  the 
divine  purpose  is  conceived  of  as  eternal ;  sometimes  as 
historical.  In  either  case  the  treatment  of  the  subject  is 
not  speculative,  but  practical  and  religious.  The  refer- 
ences to  God's  purpose  illustrate  the  effort  to  form  a 
rational  conception  of  God's  historic  action  ;  to  find  an 
ideal  principle  underlying  the  course  of  the  world,  and  to 
correlate  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  with  the  character  of 
God.  For  Paul  the  purposes  of  God  are  rooted  in  the 
nature  of  God. 

The  apostle  has  not  directly  discussed  the  nature  of 
God  or  presented  any  analysis  of  his  attributes.  There 
are  two  qualities,  however,  which  he  attributes  to  God 
which  combine  to  constitute  his  working  conception  of 
God's  ethical  nature.  They  are  represented,  on  the  one 
hand,  by  the  words  "love"  and  ''grace,"  and  on  the  other, 
by  the  words  "righteousness"  and  "wrath."  Paul  hijii 
strong  emphasis  upon  the  love,  the  gracious  favor,  of 
God  towards  men.  It  was  this  love  which  prompted  the 
gift  of  Christ  for  our  salvation  (Rom.  v.  8).  The  love 
of  ^God  is  the  mightiest  power  in  the  universe  (Rom.  viii. 
38,  39).  God  is  "rich  in  mercy"  (Eph.  ii.  4),  and  the 
keynote  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  his  gracious  purpose  is, 
"  that  he  might  have  mercy  upon  all "  (Jva  rov^  Travra'; 
iXerjCT'p^  Rom.  xi.  32).     Grace  (xa/ot?,  Rom,  iii.  24 ;  v.    2 


THE   DIVINE   PURPOSE  377 

et  al.'),  mercy  (6\eo<;^  Rom.  ix.  23;  xi.  31),  and  compas- 
sion QoUnpfjiOL,  Rom.  xii.  1 ;  2  Cor.  i.  3)  are  the  watch- 
words of  Paul's  doctrine  of  God's  nature  and  action. ^ 
We  may  confidently  add  that  in  assigning  to  love  the 
preeminence  among  virtues  (1  Cor.  xiii.  13),  and  in  des- 
ignating love  as  moral  completeness  (to  reXetov,  1  Cor. 
xiii.  10),  the  apostle  implies  that  love  is  the  essential 
glory  of  the  divine  perfection.  As  love  is  the  crowning 
virtue  for  man,  so  must  it  be  for  God.  But  what,  then, 
can  be  the  meaning  of  those  terms  which  seem  to  express 
a  contrast  or  counterpart  to  love  ? 

Paul  emphasizes  a  principle,  called  the  divine  wrath 
(op'yrf)^  which  stands  in  contrast  to  those  expressions  of 
love  which  are  called  mercy  or  grace :  "  The  wrath  of 
God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and 
unrighteousness  of  men"  (Rom.  i.  18).  The  riches  of 
God's  goodness  —  glory,  honor,  and  peace  —  are  bestowed 
upon  the  good  ;  while  wrath  and  indignation,  tribulation 
and  anguish  are  the  lot  of  the  wicked  (Rom.  ii.  4,  5,  8). 
Sinners  are  exposed  to  God's  wrath  from  wliich  it  is  the 
purpose  of  redemption  to  deliver  them  (Rom.  iv.  15 ; 
V.  9).  They  are  described  as  objects  of  God's  hostility 
(e%^/3ot,  Rom.  v.  10 ;  xi.  28)  —  a  term  which,  in  my  judg- 
ment, is  to  be  taken,  as  the  context  in  both  passages  shows, 
in  a  passive,  and  not  in  an  active,  sense. ^  What,  now,  is 
the  relation  of  this  0/07^  Oeov  to  the  divine  love  ?  It  seems 
clear  to  me  that  it  is  regarded  as  an  aspect  or  activity  of 
God's  holy  love.  It  is  God's  holy  displeasure  at  sin  —  the 
reaction  of  his  nature  against  it.  It  is  the  energy  with 
which  his  love,  being  holy,  repudiates  its  opposite.  It  is 
not,  therefore,  inconsistent  with  love ;   it  does  not  stand 

1  "  L' amour  {aydirri)  est  Tattribut  divin.  Plac^  en  presence  du  p^cheur, 
I'amour  donne  naiesance  k  la  misericorde  (eXeos),  et  la  grace  (xapts)  est 
Pamour  dans  son  application  effective  et  personnelle  an  prehear.  Les 
trois  termes  expriment  la  meme  id^e  sous  different  faces,  et  Paul  les 
emploie  frdquemment  Tun  pour  I'autre."  M^n^goz,  Le  Peche,  etc., 
pp.  130,  131. 

2  So  Meyer,  Weiss,  Pfleiderer,  Lipsius,  M^n^goz,  von  Soden,  Holtz- 
mann,  Klopper,  Schmiedel,  vs.  Baur,  Eitschl,  Beyschlag.  I  think  that 
ix^p6$  is  probably  active  in  Col.  i.  21,  and  certainly  so  in  Rom.  viii.  7. 


378  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

in  opposition  to  it.  The  opposite  of  love  is  hate,  and  God 
is  not  described  as  hating  men.^  Wrath  stands  in  con- 
trast to  those  activities  of  love  which  are  called  grace  or 
compassion.  They  denote  the  aspect  of  the  divine  love 
according  to  which  it  pities  the  sinner  and  waits  to  for- 
give him.  Wrath  denotes- the  attitude  of  the  divine  love 
towards  wilful  sin.  Both  qualities  or  impulses  —  that  of 
ofrace,  and  that  of  wrath — are  embraced  within  the  divine 
love.  The  conception  of  God's  righteousness  {ScKato- 
avvTf)^  where  it  expresses  his  attitude  towards  sin,  is  simi- 
lar. Sometimes  the  word  denotes  God's  faithfulness  to 
his  own  nature  and  promises,  as  in  Rom.  iii.  5 :  "  But  if 
our  unrighteousness  commendeth  the  righteousness  of  God, 
what  shall  we  say?"  But  in  iii.  25,  26,  hiKaiocrvvr]  ex- 
presses God's  disapproval  of  sin  in  contrast  to  a  seeming 
laxity  in  his  estimate  of  it.  Through  Christ  God  has 
accomplished  an  ''exhibition  or  demonstration  of  his 
righteousness"  (eV8etft?  tt)?  hiicaLoavvr)^  avrov^  which  is 
adapted  to  prevent  men  from  supposing  that  because  he 
refrained  from  punishing  the  sins  of  men  in  past  times, 
he  is  indifferent  to  sin  or  regards  it  lightly.  Here  hicaio- 
(Tvvrj  must  mean  the  self-respecting  attribute  of  holiness 
in  God,  the  reaction  of  his  nature  against  sin  which  must 
find  expression  in  its  condemnation. ^r^ Holy  love  is  the 
best  de^iition  of  Paul's  conception  of  ~^ie  ethical  nature 
of  God. 

What,  now,  is  Paul's  view  of  God's  relation  to  the 
world?  In  this  conception  his  doctrine  of  God's  special 
purpose  in  Jewish  history  and  in  Christ  must  have  its 
root.  We  find  that  Paul  regards  the  world  as  the  scene 
of  a  great  redemptive  process.     Nature  is  now  subject  to 

1  The  phrase  :  "  Esau  have  I  hated"  (Rom.  ix.  13)  means,  as  the  con- 
text shows,  "a  rejection  of  one  in  favor  of  another  who  is  preferred" 
(Beyschlag).  Paul  explains  this  preference  by  the  words:  "The  elder 
shall  serve  the  younger." 

2  The  context  of  this  passage  is  decisive  against  the  view  of  Ritschl, 
Beyschlag,  and  others,  who  deny  that  biKaLoavv-q  here  bears  a  judicial  or 
penal  sense.  It  does  this,  however,  without  being  "placed  in  funda- 
mental contradiction  to  the  divine  grace  "  (Beyschlag).  Cf.  my  articles, 
"  Holiness"  and  "  Righteousness,"  in  Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary. 


THE  DIVINE  PURPOSE  379 

imperfection  and  death,  but  not  without  hope  of  deliver- 
ance (Rom.  viii.  18-25).  In  this  passage  in  which  the 
present  condition  and  the  hope  of  both  nature  and  man 
are  described,  the  apostle  has  strikingly  approximated  the 
great  modern  generalization  of  evolution.  In  Colossians 
and  Ephesians  he  portrays  the  "  cosmic  significance  "  of 
Christ,  and  shows  that  he  has  always  been  in  the  world  to 
which  he  sustains  an  original  relation.  Thus  the  forces 
of  redemption  have  always  penetrated  the  world.  Christ 
was  not  only  in  the  histor}^  of  Israel  a  "  spiritual  rock  " 
of  which  they  drank  (1  Cor.  x.  4),  but  is  in  the  whole 
history  of  man.  In  these  broad  conceptions  of  God's 
all-embracing  interest  for  his  world,  Paul's  ideas  of  his 
special  purposes,  dispensations,  and  promises  are  grounded. 
Accordingly  the  apostle  teaches  that  revelation  is  uni- 
versal. God  has  not  "  left  himself  without  witness "  in 
the  case  of  any  people  (Acts  xiv.  17),  but  in  the  bounties 
of  his  providence  has  taught  men  to  recognize  him.  The 
course  of  history,  also,  and  the  testimony  of  conscience 
are  means  by  which  God  has  led  men  to  "  feel  after  him  " 
and  to  divine  their  kinship  to  him  (Acts  xvii.  26-28). 
Thus,  even  to  the  heathen,  God  made  himself  known,  and 
"  that  which  may  be  known  of  God  "  (^rb  yvaa-rbv  rod  deov, 
Rom.  i.  19)  was  evident  (^avepov)  to  them,  for  God  made 
it  evident  (i(\)av6p(oaev)  to  them.  Such  a  disclosure  of 
himself  as  they  were  capable  of  receiving  in  the  dim  light 
of  nature,  God  gave  them.  This  he  did  through  the  evi- 
dences of  his  wisdom  and  power  which  are  displayed  in 
nature,  and  which  the  reason  of  man  is  competent  to 
interpret  (Rom.  i.  20)  ;  but  still  more  plainly  did  he  do 
so  through  the  voice  of  conscience,  the  moral  law  written 
on  the  hearts  of  men,  which  speaks  of  a  holy  authority 
to  which  they  are  subject.  Man's  rational  and  religious 
nature  makes  him  susceptible  to  the  evidences  of  a  super- 
natural power  and  a  moral  tawgiver  to  whom  he  is 
responsible.  This  "light  of  nature,"  or  universal  self- 
revelation  of  God  in  his  world,  is  sufficient  to  fonnd  moral 
obligation  and  responsibility,  and  to  render  the  heathen 
"  without  excuse  "  for  the  gross  idolatries  and  wickedness 


380  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    PAUL 

into  whicli  they  have  fallen  (Rom.  i.  20).  It  is  true  that 
"  the  world  by  its  wisdom  knew  not  God  "  (1  Cor.  i.  21), 
that  is,  the  Greek  philosopher  did  not  attain  by  his  specu- 
lations to  such  a  saving  knowledge  of  God  as  the  Chris- 
tian possesses.  Yet  there  is  a  real  knowledge  of  God 
which  is  available  for  all,  and  which  might  have  been  the 
possession  of  all  men  if  they  had  not  in  wicked  perversity 
become  vain  in  their  reasonings,  darkened  their  foolish 
hearts,  and  so  refused  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge 
(Rom.  i.  21,  28). 

The  God  in  whom  Paul  believes  is  not  the  God  of  the 
Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles  (Rom.  iii.  29).  Yet 
he  bears  a  special  relation  to  Israel.  To  the  Jewish  people 
he  specially  revealed  himself,  and,  despite  their  sin  and 
unbelief,  his  faithfulness  to  his  covenant  shall  not  fail 
(Rom.  iii.  1-5).  What,  now,  was  the  nature  and  pur- 
pose of  this  divine  election  of  Israel  ?  I  answer  that 
Paul  conceives  of  it  as  a  historic  action  of  God  in  setting 
apart  the  Jewish  nation  to  a  special  mission  or  function 
in  the  world  as  the  bearer  of  his  revelation  to_all  man- 
kind. God's  purpose  of  blessing  for  the  world  is  uni- 
versal. Israel  is  a  chosen  instrument  for  carrying  that 
blessing  to  all  men.  The  gospel  has  been  from  of  old, 
and  is  designed  for  mankind  and  adapted  to  man  as  man. 
The  great  sin  of  the  Jewish  nation  is  that  they  have  nar- 
rowed the  mercy  of  God  and  have  fallen  into  thinking 
that  the  blessings  of  heaven  are  pledged  to  them  and 
terminate  upon  them,  instead  of  seeing  them  as  a  gift 
intrusted  to  them  to  be  passed  on  to  others.  The  cur- 
rent particularism  against  which  Paul  contended,  sprang 
out  of  a  narrow  conception  of  Israel's  election  as  an  arbi- 
trary preference  for  the  Jewish  people,  for  their  own  sake 
—  a  divine  partiality  in  the  government  of  the  world. 
Against  this  view  Paul's  whole  doctrine  is  a  j)rotest. 

In  Rom.  ix.-xi.  he  deals  with  the  perplexing  question  : 
How  can  the  election  of  Israel  be  harmonized  with  the 
actual  history  of  the  nation?  How  can  the  Jews'  rejec- 
tion of  the  Messiah  consist  with  God's  purpose  to  make 
the  nation  the  means  of  ushering  in  his  Messianic  King- 


THE   DIVINE   PURPOSE  381 

dom?i  Paul  begins  by  pointing  out  the  fact  that  there 
may  be  now,  as  in  previous  epochs,  an  election  within  the 
election  —  a  faithful  nucleus  in  an  otherwise  faithless 
nation.  If  the  mass  of  the  nation  should  perish  in  reject- 
ing the  Messiah,  there  might  still  be  a  faithful  remnant, 
an  Israel  within  Israel  (ix.  6-13).  Moreover,  besides 
this  providential  selection,  there  is  God's  free  supremacy. 
He  may  choose  the  instruments  of  his  providence  for 
reasons  of  his  own.  We  should  not  criticise  what  he 
does.  Paul  here  attempts  no  concrete  theodicy,  but  only 
urges  that  what  God  does,  however  perplexing  to  us,  is 
just  and  wise  (ix.  14-33).  But  these  general  considera- 
tions, the  one  a  fact  of  observation,  the  other  a  maxim 
based  upon  the  nature  of  God,  do  not  wholly  satisfy  the 
apostle's  mind  or  relieve  the  subject  of  its  difficulties. 
Something  analogous  to  the  present  situation  may,  indeed, 
be  seen  in  the  past,  and  God  may,  of  course,  do  what  he 
will.  But  God  must  be  self-consistent.  The  question 
returns :  How  is  the  Jews'  attitude  towards  the  Messiah 
reconcilable  with  God's  own  covenant  ?  Is  not  the  prom- 
ise to  the  fathers  annulled  by  the  present  position  of  thai 
nation  ? 

At  this  point  the  apostle  introduces  a  new  consideration. 
If  the  Jews  do  fail  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  it  will  be 
by  their  own  fault.  Their  present  partial  failure  is  due 
to  their  seeking  to  establish  their  own  righteousness.  If 
they  lose  the  Messianic  salvation,  it  will  be  from  unbelief. 
It  will  be  another  case  such  as  Isaiah  describes  when  he 
speaks  of  Jehovah  as  stretching  out  his  hands  all  day  long 
to  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people.  This  is  the  gist 
of  the  tenth  chapter. 

1  Dr.  Bruce  (St.  PauVs  Conception  of  Christianity,  p.  311)  holds  that 
the  question  before  Paul's  mind,  in  these  chapters,  is :  How  adjust  the 
Jews'  rejection  of  the  Messiah  with  my  doctrine  of  a  universal  gospel? 
I  think  that  this  question  is  logically  involved,  and  that  the  solution  which 
the  apostle  reaches  bears  upon  it ;  but  I  see  no  evidence  that  this  was 
precisely  the  question  which  was  directly  before  his  mind  in  the  discus- 
sion. He  starts  with  the  problem  :  How  reconcile  the  present  attitude  of 
the  Jewish  people  towards  the  Messiah  with  the  "word  of  God"  (ix.  6)  in 
his  covenant  with  Israel  ? 


382  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

But  Paul  now  shifts  his  defence  somewhat.  Thus  far 
he  has  been  developing  an  argumentum  ad  homineyn.  His 
point  is  that  the  Jews'  idea  of  an  election  of  God,  based 
upon  an  exclusive  preference  for  them,  is  groundless.  It 
is  contrary  alike  to  their  own  history,  to  the  nature  of 
God,  and  to  the  fact  that  man  is  required  to  fulfil  the 
conditions  of  obedience  and  faithfulness  if  he  is  to  con- 
tinue in  God's  favor.  The  problem  to  which  Jewish 
history  gives  rise  is,  indeed,  a  perplexing  one.  But 
whether,  in  itself  considered,  it  can  be  solved  or  not, 
what  can  be  confidently  said  in  regard  to  it  is  amply 
sufficient  to  refute  the  Judaizing  interpretation  of  the 
divine  purpose  in  the  election  of  Israel.  Paul  interprets 
it  in  the  light  of  the  boundless  mercy  of  God  and  in 
accord  with  his  doctrine  of  a  universal  gospel.  But  what 
has  been  said  in  chapters  ix.  and  x.  is  occasioned  by  looking 
at  the  subject  only  on  its  dark  side.  It  is  as  if  he  said  : 
Most  of  my  countrymen,  the  nation  as  a  whole,  are  refus- 
ing the  Messiah.  If  this  rejection  goes  on  indefinitely, 
how  can  such  a  fact  be  adjusted  to  my  view  of  God  and 
of  the  providential  mission  of  Judaism  ?  But  that  is  to 
assume  that  the  lapse  is  to  be  substantially  complete. 
From  this  assumption  the  apostle,  "animated  by  the  in- 
vincible optimism  of  Christian  patriotism  "  (Bruce),  now 
recovers  himself.  "  Did  God  cast  off  his  people  ?  "  "  By 
no  means,"  he  answers.  In  the  eleventh  chapter  he  pur- 
sues this  more  hopeful  view  of  Israel's  future.  He,  as  a 
Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  cannot  admit  that  such  is  to  be 
the  goal  of  the  nation.  Just  now  the  prospect  is,  indeed, 
dark  —  as  dark  as  it  was  when  Elijah  contemplated  the 
prevailing  idolatry  of  the  nation.  Yet  he  learned  that 
a  far  larger  number  than  he  had  supposed  were  faithful 
to  Jehovah.     It  may  prove  so  again  (yv.  1-10). 

But  the  matter  may  be  looked  at  in  another  way.  It 
seems  as  if  the  Gentiles  were  taking  the  place  of  the  Jews 
in  the  Messianic  Kingdom ;  as  if  the  reception  of  the  heathen 
meant  the  rejection  of  the  Jews.  But  this  is  not  really  so, 
says  the  apostle.  The  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  so  far 
from  closing  the  doors  of  the  Kingdom  against  the  Jews, 


THE   DIVIKE  PURPOSE  383 

opens  tliem  the  wider.  Paul's  hope  is  that  when  the 
Jews  see  the  heathen  possessing  the  blessings  which  were 
so  freely  offered  to  them,  they  will  be  ''provoked  to 
jealousy  "  and  constrained  to  receive  the  Messiah.  And 
thus,  if  the  refusal  of  the  Jews  to  believe  on  Christ  occa- 
sioned an  earlier  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  heathen, 
it  is  the  apostle's  hope  that  the  acceptance  of  Christ  by 
the  Gentiles  may  act  as  a  motive  upon  the  Jews  to  accept 
him  also,  "  that  by  the  mercy  shown  to  you  they  also  may 
now  obtain  mercy"  (v.  31).  Paul  presents  this  idea  pic- 
torially  by  describing  the  Old  Testament  theocracy,  which 
was  the  historic  basis  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  as  a  sacred 
olive  tree.  The  natural  branches  —  the  Jews  —  have  been 
broken  off  on  account  of  their  unbelief,  and  in  their  place 
the  branches  of  a  wild  olive  tree  —  the  Gentiles  —  have 
been  grafted  in.  But  these  retain  their  places  in  the 
sacred  trunk  only  by  faith.  Should  they  be  guilty  of 
the  same  unfaithfulness,  they  would  be  lopped  off  as  the 
natural  branches  have  been.  But  what  the  apostle  hopes 
for  is  that  the  grafting  in  of  the  wild  olive  branches  will 
be  followed  by  the  recovery  of  the  natural  branches.  He 
argues  a  fortiori  that,  if  salvation  has  now  come  to  the 
Gentiles,  it  is  reasonable  to  think  that  the  natural  heirs  of 
God's  promise  will  not  ultimately  fail  of  it.  Certainly 
this  ingenious  and,  to  us,  somewhat  strange  argument  is 
the  product  of  a  persistent  and  splendid  hopefulness  for  the 
world.  Paul  refuses  to  despair  of  his  people.  He  insists 
that  there  is  light  behind  the  dark  events  of  the  present 
hour;  that  Gentiles  and  Jews  shall  yet  be  united  in  one 
Church.  Sin  and  unbelief  do  dim  the  light  of  hope,  but 
God  is  over  all,  and  his  purpose  of  grace  will  not  fail.  In 
spite  of  all,  the  apostle  raises  the  triumphant  cry  :  "  That 
he  might  have  mercy  upon  all " ;  "  O,  depth  of  the  riches 
of  divine  love " ;  "  Of  God,  and  through  him,  and  unto 
him  are  all  things"  (yv.  32,  33,  36). 

From  this  brief  review  of  these  chapters  the  follow- 
ing points  are  evident :  (1)  They  treat,  primarily,  of  the 
election  of  a  people,  not  of  the  election  of  individuals. 
(2)  They  treat  of  election  to  a  historic  function  or  mis- 


384  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

sion,  not  of  election  to  eternal  destiny.  (3)  They  contem- 
plate this  action,  in  the  manner  and  on  the  basis  of  the  Old 
Testament,  as  a  historic  action  of  God,  rather  than  as  a 
pre-temporal  action.  (4)  This  election  is  regarded  as  un- 
conditional only  in  the  sense  that  it  is  not  based  upon 
meritorious  works  or  upon  rights  derived  from  birth  or 
nationality ;  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  unconditional  in 
every  sense.  (5)  The  passage,  taken  as  a  whole,  recog- 
nizes conditions  to  be  fulfilled  on  man's  part,  if  he  will 
enjoy  the  favor  of  God.  God's  purpose  is  a  purpose  of 
grace,  but  grace  and  faith  are  correlatives  in  the  Pauline 
system.  1 

We  now  turn  to  other  expressions  of  Paul  where  the 
idea  of  God's  purpose  is  clearly  set  in  connection  with 
the  final  salvation  of  men.     It  was  quite  in  accord  with 

1  We  may,  at  this  point,  be  reminded  that  a  historic  election  is  logically 
inseparable  from  a  pre-temporal  election  ;  that  the  rejection  of  the  Messiah 
was  equivalent  to  the  forfeiture  of  final  salvation ;  that  Paul  represents 
God's  choice  of  men,  as  of  Jacob  against  Esau,  ^s  without  reference  to 
anything  that  they  did,  and  that  God  is  described  as  the  efficient  cause 
of  Pharaoh's  obduracy.  Even  if  all  these  contentions  should  be  admitted 
in  their  full  force,  it  would  be  unwarrantable  to  derive  the  Pauline  doc- 
trine of  predestination  from  the  ninth  chapter  alone  ;  it  must  be  derived 
from  chapters  ix.,  x.,  and  xi.    But  there  is  more  or  less  misapprehension 

\ involved  in  all  the  above  positions.  Paul  comes  at  the  subject  of  God's 
dealings  with  men,  not  from  a  speculative,  but  from  a  historic,  standpoint. 
It  is  a  point  of  importance  that  he  is  discussing  the  historic  missions  of 
men  and  nations,  a.nd  not  eternal  destiny.  It  does,  at  least,  show  that 
it  is  exegetically  unwarrantable  to  apply  his  language  in  these  chapters  to 

>Aa  speculative  problem  which  was  not  before  him.  That  his  choice  of 
Jacob  and  rejection  of  Esau  had  no  reference  to  their  eternal  destiny, 
but  to  their  historic  position,  is  clear  from  the  Old  Testament  description 
of  the  "  election  "  :  "  The  elder  shall  serve  the  younger."  Paul  does  not 
say  that  God  was  the  direct  and  efficient  cause  of  Pharaoh's  wickedness 
—  a  supposition  which  would  be  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Much  less  does  he  say  that  he  appointed  him,  from  eternity,  to 
eternal  destruction.  The  Calvinistic  theology  has  long  built  its  doctrines 
upon  these  verses  by  taking  them  in  isolation,  by  applying  them  to  a 
metaphysical  problem  instead  of  to  a  historic  situation,  and  by  regarding 
a  series  of  speculative  inferences  from  Paul's  words  as  part  and  parcel  of 
his  explicit  and  dogmatic  teaching.  But  even  if  all  the  assumptions 
involved  in  this  proceeding  were  well  grounded,  it  would  still  be  falla- 
cious to  take,  as  a  man's  view  of  a  subject,  the  incipient  stages  of  an 
argument  concerning  it,  and  persistently  to  ignore  both  its  later  stages 
and  its  conclusion. 


THE   DIVINE   PURPOSE  385 

Jewish  methods  of  thought,  as  well  as  logically  necessary, 
that  Paul  should  trace  the  work  of  salvation  back  to  God's 
eternal  purpose.  Hence  he  speaks  of  God's  foreknowing 
and  foreordaining  men  to  be  ''  conformed  to  the  image  of 
his  Son  "  (Rom.  viii.  29),  and  of  Christians  as  being  chosen 
in  Christ  "before  the  foundation  of  the  world"  (Eph.  i.  4). 
The  divine  wisdom  which  is  manifest  in  the  mystery  of 
redemption  was  hidden  in  God  and  "  foreordained  before 
the  world  unto  our  glory"  (1  Cor.  ii.  7),  "according  to 
the  eternal  purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord''  (Eph.  iii.  11).  Christians  are  "the  called 
(^/cXtjtol')  according  to  God's  purpose  "  (Rom.  viii.  28), 
the  elect  {ifcXe/croL,  Rom  viii.  33).  "God  from  the  begin- 
ning chose  them  to  salvation  in  sanctification  of  the 
Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth"  (2  Thess.  ii.  13).  It  is 
worthy  of  notice  that,  in  all  these  passages,  the  apostle 
sets  this  purpose  of  God  in  relation  to  the  salvation,  and 
not  to  the  reprobation,  of  men.  In  Rom.  ix.  he  does, 
indeed,  represent  God's  purpose  as  involving  the  accept- 
ance of  some  and  the  rejection  of  others ;  but,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  subject  of  final  salvation  is  not  there  under  con- 
sideration. Jacob  is  chosen,  Esau  is  rejected.  Pharaoh 
is  brought  upon  the  field  of  history  to  show  God's  power. 
As  the  potter  makes  vessels  for  various  uses,  so  God  ap- 
points to  one  man  or  nation  one  providential  r51e,  to 
another,  another.  And  this  he  does  according  to  his  own 
sovereign  good  pleasure.  He  is  not  governed  in  so  doing, 
as  Paul's  opponents  supposed,  by  the  merits  or  claims  of 
certain  persons. 

Theology  has  often  applied  these  ideas  to  the  subject  of 
man's  final  destiny.     Whatever  may  be  the  logic  of  sucli^ 
an  application,  it  is  exegetically  unjustifiable.     It  is  a  use 
of  Paul's  words  which  he  does  not  sanction,  and  which 
misapprehends  the  point  of   his  argument.     But  it  may 
be  said  :  Elsewhere  Paul  teaches  that  the  eternal  destiny 
of  men  is  fixed  in  God's  eternal  purpose.     In  any  case, 
Paul  is  a  predestinarian.       I    reply  that   Paul   does  not 
teach  the  eternal,  unconditional   predestination    of   some  . 
men  to  final  salvation  and  of  others  to  final  condemna-^ 
2o 


386  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

lion.  He  does  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  predestmation 
which  Calvin  taught,^  nor  does  he  teach  the  doctrine  as 
held  by  historic  Calvinism,  whether  of  the  supralapsarian 
or  infralapsarian  variety.  If  we  should  assume,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  that  in  Rom.  ix.-xi.  Paul  was  speaking 
of  human  destiny,  and  that  he  held  the  Calvinistic  view 
of  God's  purpose,  we  might  summarize  his  argument  thus: 
God  has  from  eternity  appointed  some  to  eternal  salva- 
tion and  others  to  eternal  perdition,  "in  order  that  he 
might  have  mercy  upon  all."  On  the  contrary,  Paul's 
whole  doctrine  of  sin  assumes  that  Adam  fell  freely  and 
voluntarily.  His  sin  was  contrary  to  the  will  of  God.  It 
I  equally  assumes  that  all  men  who  perish  do  so  by  their 
\  own  fault.  The  salvation  of  all  is  the  aim  of  the  gospel. 
\  God  "  willeth  that  all  men  should  be  saved,  and  come  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth"  (1  Tim.  ii.  4).  Christ  came 
"^to  be  the  "Saviour  of  all  men"  (1  Tim.  iv.  10).  The 
maxim  which  emerges  from  Paul's  discussion  of  the  mys- 
teries of  God's  providence  and  purpose  is :  "  That  he 
/might  have  mercy  upon  all"  (Rom.  xi.  32).  God  may 
choose  some  and  reject  others;  he  may  appoint  some  to 
one  career,  others  to  another;  his  ways  are  past  finding 
out;  he  may  do  what  he  will;  but  whatever  he  does,  it  is 
to  the  end  "  that  he  may  have  mercy  upon  all."  It  would 
be  a  glaring  contradiction  for  Paul  to  affirm  that  God 
does  not  will  the  salvation  of  some,  but  has  eternally 
appointed  them  to  perdition.  Happily  for  his  consist- 
ency, he  has  never  recorded  such  a  statement  or  its  equiva- 
lent. It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  consequences  which 
Paul  has  not  himself  drawn  from  his  own  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination, and  which  if  drawn  would  contradict  his  ex- 
plicit teaching  regarding  the  universality  of  God's  purpose 
of  grace,  are  not  a  part  of  his  system  of  thought. 

What,  then,  are  the  principal  motives  and  elements  of 

1  Dico  Denm  non  modo  primi  hominis  casum  et  in  eo  posterorum 
ruinam  prsevidisse,  sed  arbitrio  suo  dispensasse.  .  .  .  Non  pari  conditione 
creantur  omnes  :  sed  aliis  vita  seterna,  aliis  damnatio  seterna  prseordi- 
natur.  .  .  .  Cadit  homo,  Dei  providentia  sic  ordinante.  7ws^.  iii.  2,  5,  23, 
27.     Ed.  1585. 


THE   DIVINE   PURPOSE  387 

Paul's  doctrine  of  God's  election  of  men  to  salvation?  " 
On  this  question  I  would  make  the  following  suggestions : 
(1)  Religious  thought  necessarily  translates  the  actual 
world  back  into  the  ideal  world.  Paul's  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion and  predestination  is  a  carrying  back  of  God's  actual 
dealings  with  men  into  his  eternal  purpose.  (2)  Thus 
what  God  does  he  from  eternity  intended  to  do.  The 
principles  on  which  he  acts,  and  the  terms  on  which  he 
blesses  and  saves  men,  are  grounded  in  his  thought  and 
nature.  (3)  Therefore  God's  purpose  of  salvation  must 
embrace  all  the  elements  which  the  actual  process  of  sal- 
vation includes.  If  God  actually  saves  men  on  condi- 
tions, he  intended  to  save  them  so.  In  whatever  sense  he 
predetermines  those  who  are  to  be  saved,  he  must  equally 
predetermine  the  conditions  of  salvation.^  (4)  Hence 
whatever  is  the  relation  in  fact  between  man's  faith 
and  his  acceptance  with  God,  such  was  the  relation  in 
God's  purpose.  God  cannot  purpose  to  save  men  apart 
from  all  conditions,  and  then  actually  save  them  on  con- 
ditions. (5)  Paul's  practical  aim  in  his  doctrine  of 
predestination  is  to  exalt  the  divine  grace  as  the  efficient 
cause  of  salvation.  He  wants  to  ground  the  work  of  sal- 
vation  in  God's  undeserved  mercy.  Man  does  not  achieve 
it ;  God  in  sovereign  freedom  and  love  bestows  it.  But  so 
far  is  this  from  excluding  all  conditions  of  salvation  that 
faith  is,  in  the  Pauline  theology,  the  inseparable  correlate  ^ 
of  divine  grace.  (6)  God's  purpose  terminates  on  the 
establishment  of  the  gracious  plan  of  salvation.  It  is 
"  the  mystery  of  his  will  according  to  his  good  pleasure 
which  he  purposed  in  Christ"  (Eph.  i.  9).  "J^^terna 
prsedestinatio  in  Christo  et  nequaquam  extra  Christum 
consideranda  "  (^Formula  Concordioe).  (7)  Hence,  in  speak- 
ing of  God's  eternal  purpose  of  salvation,  Paul  never  speaks 

1  Ktihl  in  an  elaborate  essay,  Zur  paulinischen  Theodicee,  in  the 
volume  entitled  Festschrift  fur  B.  Weiss,  contends  that  the  election  of 
Rom.  ix.-xi.  is  a  pre-temporal  election  to  final  destiny,  but  holds  the  view 
expressed  in  the  text  that,  according  to  Paul's  principles,  the  divine 
predestination  must  include  the  determination  of  the  manner  and  con- 
tent of  salvation  and  the  condition  of  its  bestowment.  See,  especially, 
p.  88. 


388  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

of  reprobation  or  preteritioii.  On  his  principles  his  eter- 
nal purpose  as  related  to  the  "  non-elect "  could  only  mean 
that  God  chooses  not  to  do  more  or  otherwise  than  he 
does  in  order  to  save  men,  that  is,  more  than  perfect  wis- 
dom and  love  permit  and  require.  (8)  God's  eternal 
purpose  of  grace,  ideally  or  virtually,  embraces  all  men.  / 
God  wishes  to  save  all ;  Christ  comes  to  save  all.  He  is 
the  head  of  redeemed  humanity.  But  as  in  spite  of 
God's  choice  of  Israel  some  sundered  themselves  from  the 
sacred  tree  of  the  theocracy  by  unbelief,  so  it  may  be  in 
the  case  of  God's  gracious  purpose  of  salvation.  He  can- 
not annul  man's  freedom,  which  is  part  and  parcel  of 
his  plan  of  the  world.  He  cannot  override  the  conditions 
which  are  involved  in  the  nature  of  a  moral,  as  opposed 
to  a  mechanical,  universe.  If  it  is  insisted  that  "  God 
foreordains  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,"  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  freedom  and  the  realization  of  salvation  upon 
moral  terms  and  conditions  ''come  to  pass."  ^ 

1 1  would  especially  commend  the  discussions  of  this  subject  by 
M^n^goz  in  La  Predestination  dans  la  Theologie  Paulinienne^  and  by 
Bruce  in  St.  PauVs  Conception  of  Christianity,  ch.  xvii.,  entitled  "The 
Election  of  Israel." 


CHAPTER  VI 

JESUS   CHRIST 

Christ  had  been  disclosed  to  Paul  in  his  heavenly  glory 
on  the  road  to  Damascus.  From  that  moment  Paul  knew 
him  as  Messiah  and  Saviour.  It  was  doubtless  from  this 
point  of  beginning  that  he  developed  his  doctrine  of  the 
nature  and  work  of  Christ.  From  his  conversion  he  began 
to  know  him  Kara  irvev^a.  He  saw  him  as  risen  and 
glorified,  as  estabTTsKing  the  Kingdom  of  redemption,  and 
as  ruling  the  world.  In  this  way  Paul's  doctrine  of  Christ 
stands  connected,  as  his  whole  theology  does,  with  his  ex- 
perience. We  must  not  conceive  of  the  apostle  as  set- 
ting out,  after  the  manner  of  a  philosophical  theologian,  to 
define  the  person  of  Christ.  He  has  developed  no  sys- 
tematic view  of  the  subject.  He  has  not  directly  discussed 
such  topics  as  the  preexistence  of  Christ  and  the  union  of 
divinity  and  humanity  in  him.  The  statements  which 
bear  upon  such  themes  as  these  are  incidentally  made. 
Paul  is  certain  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  men. 
His  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  comes  to  expres- 
sion in  what  he  says  of  his  saving  work.  But  it  is  not 
on  that  account  less  important.  What  Paul  takes  for 
granted  is  quite  as  certainly  fundamental  in  his  doctrine 
as  what  he  tries  to  prove.  His  doctrine  of  Christ  is 
found  in  solution  in  his  various  arguments  and  exhorta- 
tions. Only  in  the  Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment  is  the 
person  of  Christ  the  more  immediate  subject  of  discus- 
sion, and  here  only  so  far  as  is  necessary  for  the  refuta- 
tion of  certain  errors. 

The  earliest  creed  of  Christendom  consisted  of  two 
words,  Kvpio^  Tt/o-oO?  —  Jesus  is  Lord  (1  Cor.  xii.  3 ; 
Rom.  X.  9).     To  make  that  confession  was  the  mark  of  a 


\ 


390  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

Christian  :  "  For,  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord  shall  be  saved"  (Rom.  x.  13).  Accordingly,  we 
find  the  lordship  of  Christ  greatly  emphasized  by  Paul. 
He  preaches  "Christ  Jesus  as  Lord"  (2  Cor.  iv.  5).  But 
Christ's  lordship  extends  not  only  over  Christians,  but 
over  all  men  :  "  There  is  no  distinction  between  Jew  and 
Greek  :  for  the  same  Lord  is  Lord  of  all,  and  is  rich  unto 
all  that  call  upon  him  "  (Rom.  x.  12).  The  rule  of  Christ 
is  absolute  ;  God  will  subject  all  things  to  him  (1  Cor. 
XV.  27;  cf,  Phil.  ii.  10,  11).  Not  only  does  Paul  apply 
to  Christ  the  term  fcvpLo^,  the  Septuagint  name  for  Jehovah, 
but  he  freely  applies  to  him  passages  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  were  spoken  of  Jehovah  (cf.  Rom.  x.  13  with 
Joel  ii.  32,  and  1  Cor.  x.  22  with  Deut.  xxxii.  21).  Hence 
the  naturalness  of  the  titles  so  commonly  used  by  Paul  : 
"Jesus  Christ  our  Lord"  and  "our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
As  Lord,  Christ  is  an  object  of  worship. ^  Paul  refers 
to  three  occasions  when  he  "  besought  the  Lord  "  (rph  t6v 
KvpLov  TrapeKoXecra,  2  Cor.  xii.  8),  that  is,  Christ,  as  verse  9 
conclusively  shows.  "  Those  who  call  upon  the  name  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  (ot  iinKaXov/jLepoL  to  ovofia  /c.r.X., 
1  Cor.  i.  2  ;  cf,  Rom.  x.  12,  13)  is  a  periphrasis  for  Chris- 
tians. This  worship  of  Christ  certainly  includes  prayer 
directed  to  him.^ 

We  have  found  good  reasons  for  believing  that  Paul 
was  not  without  a  knowledge  of  the  historical  Jesus. 
This  knowledge  enters  into  his  doctrine.  He  knows  that 
Jesus  committed  no  sin.  His  was  a  "spirit  of  holiness" 
(Rom.  i.  4).     He  "knew  no  sin"  (2  Cor.  v.  21).     All 

1  Cf.  Seeberg,  Die  Anhetung  des  Herrn  bei  Paidus,  pp.  32,  33 : 
"Ki}/3ios  is,  in  the  writings  of  Paul,  an  exclusive  designation,  involving 
Deity,  for  the  Christ  exalted  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who,  in  this  posi- 
tion, exercises  a  lordship  which  brings  God's  action  to  expression  in  sav- 
ing men  on  the  ground  of  the  historically  completed  work  of  redemption, 
—  and  who,  further,  in  this  position  of  his  as  God,  is  the  object,  on  the 
part  of  Christians,  of  a  worship  which  corresponds  to  his  activity." 

2  See  the  elaborate  investigation  of  Seeberg,  just  cited,  in  which  the 
author  concludes  that  the  prayer  directed  to  Christ  is  not  merely  relative, 
that  is,  as  to  a  Mediator  or  Intercessor  (as  Liicke  and  Meyer  hold),  but 
is  absolute,  that  is,  contemplates  Christ  as  an  independent  divine  person, 
pp.  56,  57. 


JESUS   CHRIST  391 

other  men  are  sinful.  The  human  o-dp^  is  a  aap^  afxaprla^^ 
but  Jesus  did  not  share  it.  God  sent  him  into  the  world 
ev  6/jLOLc6fjLaTt  aapKo^  d/jLaprta^  (Rom.  viii.  3)  ;  he  possessed 
a  real  human  body  and  dwelt  in  human  flesh  (1  Tim.  iii. 
16),  but  without  the  taint  of  sin  which  empirically  belongs 
to  all  flesh  except  his.  Only  such  a  sinless  one  could  con- 
demn sin  in  human  flesh,  that  is,  destroy  the  power  of  sin 
which  reigns  in  humanity. 

Paul  is  also  acquainted  with  the  fact  of  the  human 
birth  of  Jesus.  He  was  "  born  of  a  woman,  born  under 
the  law"  (Gal.  iv.  4).  He  was  "born  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh"  (Rom.  i.  3).  It  is  fre- 
quently asserted  that  these  references  to  the  human  birth 
of  Jesus  quite  exclude  the  idea  of  his  fatherless  genera- - 
tion  and  virgin  birth  as  recorded  in  Matthew  and  Luke  ; 
that  the  phrase  i/c  airepiiaro^;  AaveiS  necessarily  refers  to 
descent  on  the  father's  side.^  But  it  seems  to  me  that  all 
that  can  fairly  be  said  on  this  point  is  that  Paul  gives  no 
evidence  of  possessing  the  idea  of  the  virgin  birth  of 
Jesus.  He  says  nothing  which  would  be  inconsistent 
with  it.  Even  if  no  account  be  taken  of  the  somewhat 
doubtful  tradition  that  Mary  was  also  of  Davidic  descent, 
and  if  we  surrender  the  position  held  by  some  scholars,^ 
that  Luke's  genealogy  is  intended  to  be  that  of  Mary,  it  is 
still  possible  that  Paul  might,  for  his  purpose,  indicate  tlie 
legal  and  putative  descent  of  Jesus  by  the  words  "  of  the 
seed  of  David."  The  genealogies  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
assuming  them  to  trace  Joseph's  line,  proceed  upon  this 
view ;  Jesus  was  "  the  son  (as  was  supposed)  of  Joseph  " 
(Lk.  iii.  23).  If,  on  the  other  hand,  Paul  was  thinking 
of  Jesus'  descent  in  Mary's  line,  there  is  no  great  difficulty 
in  his  use  of  the  phrase  ifc  o-TrepfiaTo^  AaveiB,  since  "seed" 
was  a  name  in  common  use  for  posterity,  whether  of  a 
man  or  of  a  woman,  e.g.  Gen.  iii.  15 :  "I  will  put  enmity 
between  thy  seed  and  her  seed"  (q/*.  Rev.  xii.  17).  We 
can  only  say  that  Paul  does  not  touch  the  question  of  the 

1  So  Beyschlag,  iV.  T.  Theol.  II.  67,  68  (Bk.  IV.  ch.  iii.  §  8). 
^  E.g.   Olshausen,  Godet,    Commentaries,   in  loco;    Weiss,   Life   of 
Christ,  I.  216  sq. ;  Andrews,  Life  of  our  Lord,  p.  56  sq. 


k 


392  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

virgin  birth  of  Jesus,  and  that  his  statements  do  not  preju- 
dice it  either  way. 

The  most  characteristic  designation  which  Paul  applies 
to  Christ  is  "the  second  Adam."  This  title  suggests  the 
idea  that  he  is  the  head  and  founder  of  a  new  human- 
ity ;  that  in  him  a  new  human  history  takes  its  rise.^  The 
relevant  passages  are  in  1  Cor.  xv.  and  in  Rom.  v.  In 
the  former  chapter  the  apostle  is  contrasting  death  and 
life.  Adam  is  the  cause  of  the  one  ;  Christ  of  the  other  : 
"  Since  by  a  man  (Adam)  came  death,  by  a  man  (Christ) 
came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead "  (xv.  21)  ;  in 
Adam  death,  in  Christ  life.  Later  (xv.  45-49),  he  con- 
trasts their  natures.  The  first  Adam  was  made  a  living 
soul  (^yfrvxv  ^03(Td)  —  a  creature,  sharing  the  perishable  life 
of  nature  ;  "  the  last  Adam"  (o  ea-xaro^  'ASa/^)  became  (in 
his  resurrection)  a  life-giving  spirit  (irvevfjia  ^coottolovv^. 
He  is  "the  second  man  from  heaven"  (o  Bevrepo^;  av6p(o- 
iTO^  e'l  ovpavov)  ;  he  is  "the  heavenly  one  "  (^oeirovpdvLo^), 
In  Rom.  V.  12  sq.  Christ  is  the  counterpart  of  Adam. 
Through  him  comes  to  men  the  abundance  of  grace  and 
of  the  gift  of  righteousness  which  outdoes  the  power  of 
sin  introduced  by  Adam.  "  Through  his  obedience  many 
are  made  righteous"  (v.  19),  and  "grace  reigns  through 
righteousness  unto  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord"  (v.  21).  Combining  these  expressions,  we  see 
that  Paul,  either  directly  or  by  implication,  describes 
Jesus  Christ  as  6  Bevrepo^,  or  €(7xcito<;  ASci/jl  —  o  Trvev/jLan- 
k6^^  iiTOVpdvio^  dvOpwiro^  by  whom  is  undone  the  work  of 
6  TTjOcoTo?,  6  %ot/co9  ASd/jL.  By  these  terms  Paul  clearly 
places  Christ  within  the  category  of  humanity.  Did  this 
category  exhaust  his  conception  of  his  person  ?  This 
question  naturally  conducts  us  to  Paul's  doctrine  of 
Christ's  preexistence. 

The  personal  preexistence  of  Christ  as  Son  of  God  is 
naturally  implied  in  such  statements  as  that  "  God  sent 
forth  his  Son"  (Gal.  iv.  4;^  cf.  Rom.  viii.  3).      The  same 

1  Cf.  Somerville's  St.  PauVs  Concexnion  of  Christ,  Ediub.  1897,  which 
makes  this  idea  its  starting-point. 

2  Cf  Lipsius  on  Gal.  iv.  4^  m  the  Haiid-Commentar:  "'E^aTr^o-retXe  pre- 
supposes the  preexistence  of  the  Son." 


JESUS   CHRIST  393 

conception  is  involved  in  the  representation  of  Christ  as 
the  spiritual  rock  of  which  Israel  drank  (1  Cor.  x.  4). 
The  apostle  describes  Christ  as  passing  from  a  previous 
heavenly  life  to  the  poverty  of  an  earthly  existence  when 
he  says  that  "  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  though  he  was  rich, 
yet  for  our  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  we  through  his 
poverty  might  be  rich"  (2  Cor.  viii.  9).  Christ  as  o  Sev- 
Tepo^i  dvOpcoTTO^  is  said  to  be  e|  ovpavov  (1  Cor.  xv.  47). ^ 
The  force  which  I  have  attributed  to  these  expressions 
from  the  earlier  epistles  is  substantially  admitted  by 
Beyschlag,  who,  however,  regards  the  fact  that  Paul  as- 
signs to  Christ  a  heavenly  life  before  his  earthly  birth,  as 
very  surprising. ^  This  author  adds :  "  What  strikes  us 
in  all  these  statements  about  preexistence  is,  that  the 
apostle  really  nowhere  establishes  or  teaches  the  preexist- 
ence of  Christ,  but,  especially  in  his  earlier  epistles,  pre- 
supposes it  as  familiar  to  his  readers  and  disputed  by  no 
one.  It  must  therefore  have  been  a  notion  which  was 
not  in  the  least  strange  even  to  the  primitive  apostolic 
Christians  before  Paul,  such,  for  example,  as  the  readers 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans."^ 

After  these  representations  it  is  not  surprising  to  find 
the  apostle  assigning  to  Christ  a  part  in  the  creation  of 
the  world  and  an  original  relation  to  mankind :  "  To  us 
there  is  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  (ef  ou)  are  all 
things,  and  we  unto  him  (et?  avrov);  and  one  Lord, 
Jesus  Christ,  through  wdiom  (ht  oii)  are  all  things,  and  we 
through  him"  (pi  avrov^  1  Cor.  viii.  6).  This  thought 
of  Christ  as  the  coefficient  creator  of  the  world  or  as  the 
agent  of  God  in  its  creation,  and  of  his  cosmic  signifi- 
cance, is  most  fully  set  forth  in  Colossians.  The  follow- 
ing is  the  most  significant  passage  :  "  The  Son  of  his  love ; 
in  whom  we  have  our  redemption,  the  forgiveness  of  our 

1  It  must  be  admitted  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  Paul  means  to  refer 
in  this  passage  directly  to  the  preexistent  Christ,  It  is  so  understood  by 
Weizsacker,  Mdn^goz,  and  Beyschlag.  Most  recent  interpreters,  however, 
understand  it  to  refer  to  Christ  in  his  glorified  life.  So  Heinrici,  Klopper, 
Sabatier,  Weiss,  and  Holtzmann. 

2  JV.  T.  Theol.  II. -76  (Bk.  IV.  ch.  iii.  §  10). 

3  Ibid.  II.  78. 


394  THE  THEOLOGY   OF  PAUL 

sins :  who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn 
of  all  creation.;  for  in  him  were  all  things  created,  in  the 
heavens  and  upon  the  earth,  things  visible  and  things  in- 
visible, whether  thrones  or  dominions  or  principalities  or 
powers ;  all  things  have  been  created  through  him,  and 
unto  him  ;  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  in  him  all 
things  consist"  (i.  13-17).  Beside  this  passage  should 
be  placed  the  famous  description  of  Christ's  condescension 
in  Phil.  ii.  5-8  :  "  Have  this  mind  in  you,  which  was  also 
in  Christ  Jesus  :  who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  counted 
it  not  a  prize  to  be  on  an  equality  with  God,  but  emptied 
himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men ;  and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he 
humbled  himself,  becoming  obedient  even  unto  death,  yea, 
the  death  of  the  cross."  It  is  necessary  briefly  to  exam- 
ine the  terms  of  these  passages.  In  connection  with  what 
is  said  in  the  former  of  the  Son  of  God  as  the  firstborn  of 
all  creation,  it  will  be  convenient  to  consider  the  state- 
ment of  Rom.  i.  4  that  Christ  "was  declared  (or  deter- 
mined) to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  (or  in)  power,  accord- 
ing to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead."  In  connection  with  the  terms  of  the  latter  pas- 
sage :  "  being  in  the  form  of  God,"  "  on  an  equality  with 
God,"  naturally  stands  the  question  whether  the  words : 
"  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever  "  (Rom.  ix.  5),  are 
intended  to  apply  to  Christ. 

The  phrase  :  "  The  firstborn  of  all  creation"  (TrpcoTorofcof; 
irdar]';  Kriaeco^^  Col.  i.  15),  cannot  be  understood  as  includ- 
ing Christ  in  the  creation,  for  the  apostle  immediately 
adds  :  "  For  in  him  were  all  things  created"  (on  ev  avTw 
iicTiaOri  ra  TrdvTo).  The  phrase,  therefore,  describes  the 
absolute  primacy  of  Christ  in  relation  to  the  creation.  If 
on  behalf  of  the  view  that  Christ  is  here  ranked  within 
the  /crto-t?,  appeal  be  made  to  i.  18  :  "  The  firstborn  from 
the  dead  "  (^TrpcororoKO^  etc  rwv  veKpo)v)^  and  Rom.  viii.  29  : 
"  The  firstborn  among  many  brethren "  (TrpcororoKo^  ev 
TToWot?  aSeX^ot?),^  it  must  be  said  that  irpoiTOTOKo^  is  a 

1  As  by  M^n^goz  :  "Le  Fils  est  ainsi  la  premiere  entity  personelle  n^e 
de  la  voluut6  cr^atrice  de  Dieu ;  .  .  ,  un  etre  sup^rieur,  celeste,  ^lev^  en 


JESUS   CHRIST  395 

metaphor,  the  force  of  which  must  be  judged  by  the  con- 
text. In  these  two  passages  it  relates  to  the  state  which 
is  entered  at  the  resurrection,  while  in  i.  15  it  refers  to 
Christ's  relation  to  creation  and  is  defined  by  the  words 
which  exclude  Christ  from  the  ktIcti^  (cf.  1  Cor.  viii.  6).^ 
As  related  to  the  universe,  Christ  is  original.  "  He  is 
before  all  things  {irpo  izdvrcov)  and  in  him  all  things  con- 
sist" (avvearr^icev^  Col.  i.  17).  As  related  to  God,  he  is 
"  the  image  of  the  invisible  God "  (^eIkcov  tov  Oeou  rov 
aopdrov^  Col.  i.  15).  He  is  the  representation  and  mani- 
festation of  God.  The  word  eUcov  naturally  suggests  the 
notion  of  essential  kinship  (^cf.  1  Cor.  xi.  7 ;  xv.  49  ; 
Rom.  viii.  29),  and  should  be  understood  in  the  light  of 
such  statements  as  that  in  Christ  dwells  all  the  plenitude 
of  Deity  (Trdv  to  TrXrjpcojjia  tt)?  OeoTrjTo^^  Col.  ii.  9).  In 
both  passages  Paul  probably  has  in  mind  Christ's  glori- 
fied life .2  Granting,  then,  that  euKcav  and  irpcoroToico'^  are 
figurative  terms,  and  that  it  is  difficult  to  determine  their 
precise  meaning  in  application  to  the  person  of  Christ,  we 
may  say  with  confidence  that  they  are  intended  to  define 
him  as  one  whose  relation  to  God  and  to  the  universe  is 
absolutely  incomparable.  If  they  do  not  categorically 
assert  his  absolute  eternity  and  deity,  they  do,  in  my 
judgment,  place  him  outside  the  category  of  creation  and 
affirm  of  him  an  absolutely  unique  kinship  with  God. 

Some  scholars  find  a  confirmation  of  the  view  that, 
according  to  Paul,  Christ  was  the  highest  of  created 
beings  in  Rom.  i.  4 :  "  Who  was  declared  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  (tov  6pLa6evTO<;  vlov  Oeov)  with  power,  by  the 
resurrection  of  the   dead."     But  we  have  seen  that,  for 

puissance  et  en  dignity  au-dessus  de  tout  le  reste  de  I'univers,  mais  cr^e 
lui-meme.  Le  Christ  n'a  pas  de  position  intra-divine."  Le  Peche^  pp. 
IGl,  190.  Beysclilag  {N.  T.  Theol.  II.  84,  85)  draws  a  similar  conclusion 
from  a  comparison  of  Col.  i.  15  with  i.  18  and  Rom.  viii.  29,  and  Briggs 
says  that  it  must  be  conceded  that,  according  to  these  latter  passages,  we 
are  to  think  of  the  Messiah  as  "the  firstborn  of  all  creatures"  {3Iessiah 
of  the  Apostles,  p.  213).  Per  contra,  see  Sanday  on  Rom.  viii.  29,  and 
Lightfoot  and  T.  K.  Abbott  on  the  passages  in  Colossians. 

1  So  Holtzmann,  Nentest.  Theol.  II.  83. 

2  Sw^art/cws,  "in  bodily  form,"  therefore  probably  refers  to  Christ's 
glorified  corporeity  ;  cf.  Phil.  iii.  21,  a-d/xa  rrjs  dd^Tjs  aiiToO. 


396  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

Paul,  Christ  is  Son  of  God,  and  as  such  is  sent  into  the 
world  (Rom.  viii.  3  ;  Gal.  iv.  4).  Nowhere  does  he  speak 
of  Christ's  hecomiiig  Son  of  God.  His  sonship  to  God  is 
coextensive  with  his  being.  Hence  Beyschlag  correctly 
says  :  "  That  Christ  should  have  first  become  Son  of  God 
through  the  resurrection  is,  according  to  Paul's  view,  in- 
conceivable." ^  The  passage  itself  justifies  no  other  con- 
clusion. Paul  is  describing  Christ  in  two  aspects  of  his 
being.  According  to  the  flesh  he  is  descended  from 
David  ;  according  to  a  spirit  of  holiness,  that  is,  in  his 
essential  life,  lie  was  shown  to  be  God's  son  by  the  resur- 
rection. The  verb  opl^etv  means  to  set  a  boundary  (opo^')^ 
to  bound  off  anything  ;  hence  to  define  or  distinguish 
anything.  Christ  was  defined  as  Son  of  God,  that  is,  dis- 
tinguished as  having  that  character,  by  that  great  act  of 
divine  power,  the  resurrection.  The  sense  is  well  enough 
given  by  saying  that,  to  Paul's  mind,  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion was  the  supreme  proof  of  his  divine  sonship  —  the 
act  by  which  he  was  declared  to  be  God's  Son.  Here,  as 
in  other  passages,  we  see  that  Paul  rises  to  his  conception 
of  Christ  from  the  contemplation  of  his  resurrection  and 
glorified  life  in  heaven. 

In  the  locus  classicus,  Phil.  ii.  5-8,  there  are  four  prin- 
cipal thoughts  :  (1)  A  description  of  Christ's  pre-incarnate 
state.  He  Avas  "in  the  form  of  God  "  (ez^  fJ'Op(f)rj  Oeov^  and 
was  "  on  an  equality  with  God  "  (^ro  elvai  laa  Oeo)).^  (2)  A 
statement  of  his  disposition  not  to  retain  the  advantages 
or  prerogatives  of  that  state.  ''  The  mind  which  was  in 
Christ "  was  a  disposition  which  led  him  not  to  count  his 
equality  with  God  as  a  booty  or  prize,  something  to  be 
grasped  and  retained  (oj)^  dpirayfjidv  riy7]aaT0  to  elvai  taa 
^eo)),  but  which,  on  the  contrary,  impelled  him  to  divest 
himself  of  his  heavenly  glory  (^eavrov  eKevcoaev).^     (3)  A 

1  N.  T.  Theol.  IL  68  (Bk.  IV.  cli.  iii.  §  8). 

2  I  assume  that  these  words  refer  to  the  pre-incarnate  life  of  Christ, 
and  not  to  his  historic  life  —  a  view  which,  says  Holtzmann,  "  ist  von 
der  grossen  Mehrheit  der  Exegeten,  zuletzt  auch  von  Beyschlag  (Bk.  IV. 
ch.  iii.  §  10),  mit  Reclit  aufgegeben  worden."    Neiitest.  Theol.  II.  82,  83. 

3  I  think  it  is  well  established  by  exegesis  that  ap7ray/.L6s  here  has  a  pas- 
sive rather  than  an  active  force,  and  denotes  something  to  be  grasped  or 


JESUS   CHRIST  397 

description  of  self-divestiture  or  kenosis.  In  the  transition 
from  heaven  to  earth  he  "  took  on  tlie  form  of  a  servant " 
(^/jLopcfirjv  SovXov  \dP(ov)^  and  "  was  made  in  the  likeness 
of  men  and  was  formed  in  fashion  (crx^l^^^  ^s  a  man." 
(4)  He  then  stooped  to  the  deepest  depths  of  humiliation 
and  endured  the  shameful  death  of  the  cross. 

It  is  difficult  to  reduce  to  precise  doctrinal  expression  a 
passage  which  was  written  for  a  purely  practical  purpose. 
It  is,  at  any  rate,  clear  that  Paul  here  represents  Christ  as 
preexisting  in  a  divine  form  of  being,  which  is  contrasted 
with  the  servant  form,  in  the  likeness  of  men,  which  he 
assumed,  and  as  relinquishing  a  Godlike  dignity  which  is 
called  equality  with  God  in  order  to  suffer  and  die.  Such 
was  Christ's  great  self-renunciation.  He  stooped  from 
heaven  to  earth.  He  left  the  divine  glory  and  preroga- 
tives which  he  possessed  to  become  subject  to  human  limi- 
tations and  conditions.  And  this  he  did  voluntarily.  He 
did  not  cling  to  the  dignity  which  was  his,  but  freely 
divested  himself  of  it  that  he  might  bless  and  save  men. 
Here,  as  in  the  other  passages  which  we  have  noticed,  the 
apostle  has  prominently  in  mind  the  glorified  Christ.  In 
return  for  the  Redeemer's  condescension,  God  has  exalted 
him  to  a  throne  of  power  and  glory  and  given  him  the 
name  (to  ovoiia)  that  is  above  every  name.  This  name 
must  be  that  of  Lord  (ii.  11).  It  is  probable  that  Christ's 
pre-temporal  glory  is  thought  of  as  the  counterjDart  of  his 
exaltation  to  sovereignty  over  the  world. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  passages  it  does  not  seem  to 
me  incredible  that  Paul  should  have  applied  to  Christ  the 
words  :  "who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever  "  (Rom.  ix.  5). 
That  Christ  should  be  called  6e6^  does  not  seem  strange 

held  —  a  prize  or  booty.  I  cannot  help  distrusting  all  efforts  to  distin- 
guish sharply  between  /xop07j  deov  and  to  elvai  I'a-a  Oecp.  The  most  recent 
and  one  of  the  ablest  of  these  attempts  is  that  made  by  Dr.  Gifford  in  his 
study  of  Phil,  ii.  5-11,  entitled  The  Bicarnation.  He  holds  that  ^o/)07? 
deou  denotes  the  "specific  character"  of  Deity  which  is  inseparable  from 
the  "nature"  which  Christ,  as  divine,  could  not  renounce,  while  iVa  Oec^ 
denotes  the  mode  o^  his  manifestation,  subordinate  to  his  essence,  which 
he  could  and  did  lay  aside  in  the  incarnation.  The  exposition  is  turned 
against  the  various  forms  of  the  kenotic  theory. 


398  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

after  preexistence,  creatorship,  being  in  the  form  of  God, 
equality  with  God,  and  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  have 
been  attributed  to  him.  The  principal  reasons  for  holding 
that  our  English  versions  are  riglit  in  so  rendering  the 
passage  are  :  (1)  The  other  rendering,  which  places  a  full 
stop  after  the  words  "  concerning  the  flesh,"  and  then  reads 
the  remainder  of  the  verse  as  an  exclamation  of  praise  to 
God,  is  unnaturally  abrupt.  As  a  description  of  Christ, 
however,  it  comes  in  as  a  climax  in  the  statement  of  the 
glories  of  Israel  as  the  agent  of  God  in  the  work  of  revela- 
tion and  redemption.  (2)  As  applied  to  Christ  the  Avords 
form  a  natural  antithesis  to  to  Kara  adpKa,  thus  :  In  that 
aspect  of  his  being  denoted  by  adp^  Christ  is  descended 
from  the  Jewish  people,  but  in  his  essential  nature  he  is 
God  over  all.^  The  principal  objection  to  this  view  is 
that  Paul  does  not  elsewhere  call  Christ  ^eo?,  much  less 
^€0?  eVfc  TrdvTcov.  But  it  is  answered,  on  the  other  side, 
that  Paul  does  elsewhere  attribute  creatorship  and  sov- 
ereignty over  the  universe  to  Christ  (^e.c/.  Col.  i.  16),  and 
applies  to  him  terms  clearly  implying  ^eoTr;?.^     Those  who 

1  I  cannot  agree  with  Dr.  Cone  that  the  primary  question  respecting 
this  alleged  antithesis  is  whether  it  "  can  be  shown  to  be  required  or  even 
expected  in  this  connection"  (Paul,  p.  297).  The  primary  question  is, 
whether  the  structure  of  the  sentence  shows  that  Paul  made  it.  A  second- 
ary question  is,  whether  such  a  contrast  is  natural  in  view  of  the  whole 
course  of  thought.  Dr.  Cone's  objection  to  an  appeal  to  Colossians  is 
weakened  by  an  increasing  recognition  by  criticism  of  its  genuineness 
(c/.  p.  326). 

2  A  full  stop  is  placed  after  rb  Kara  aapKa  by  Lachmann  and  Tischen- 
dorf  ;  a  comma  by  Scrivener,  Westcott  and  Hort,  Weymouth,  and  Weiss. 
Among  interpreters  who  regard  6  wv  iirl  irdvToiv  deos  as  a  doxology  to  God 
are  Meyer,  Lorenz,  Ezra  Abbot,  Beet,  Lipsius,  and  H.  J.  Holtzmann. 
Among  those  who  refer  the  words  to  Christ  are  Reuss,  Eitschl,  Godet, 
Weiss,  Dwight,  and  Sanday.  Several  recent  writers  express  themselves 
doubtfully  upon  the  point.  M^n^goz,  Le  Peche,  p.  193,  refers  the  words 
to  Christ  in  a  signijication  flottante,  cf.  deoi  iroWoi  (1  Cor.  viii.  5).  Pflei- 
derer,  who  in  Das  Urchristentlium  (p.  240)  expressed  a  preference  for  the 
first  interpretation,  in  Der  PauUnisimis  (2te  Aull.  p.  163)  inclines  to  refer 
the  words  to  Christ  in  the  same  sense  as  M^negoz.  Beyschlag,  who  in 
his  Christologie  (p.  210)  defended  the  reference  to  God,  in  his  N.  T.  Theol. 
(Eng.  tr.  II.  73)  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  phrase  is  intended  to  ex- 
press the  Kvpi6TT]s  (not  dedrrjs)  of  Christ.  Bovon  {Theol.  du  N.  T.  II.  282), 
Bruce  {St.  PauVs   Conception  of  Christianity,  p.  340),  and  Somerville 


JESUS   CHRIST  399 

hold  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus  may  appeal 
to  ii.  13  :  i7n<f)dv€iav  tt)?  So^rj'^  tov  fjueyaXov  Oeov  koI  crcDTTjpo^ 
rjfxSiv  XpLcrrov  'I?;cro{),  where  grammatical  considerations  cer- 
tainly favor  the  application  of  both  aj)pellatives,  /jieydXov 
Oeov  and  acoTr/po^^  which  are  connected  by  Kal  under  a 
common  article,  to  the  same  person,  thus  supporting  the 
rendering  of  the  Revised  Version  :  "The  appearing  of  the 
glory  of  our  great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 

There  are  two  related  points  in  Paul's  teaching  which 
create  a  certain  difficulty  in  view  of  the  representations 
which  we  have  considered,  and  which  are  often  urged  as 
requiring  a  different  conclusion  from  that  towards  which 
the  passages  just  reviewed  seem  to  point.  The  first  is 
the  description  of  Christ  as  standing  in  an  order  of  de- 
pendence or  subordination  to  God.  The  principal  pas- 
sages are,  1  Cor.  iii.  23  :  "  God  is  the  head  of  Christ,"  as 
Christ  is  the  "  head  of  man  "  and  the  husband  the  "  head 
of  the  wife  " ;  1  Cor.  xv.  24-28,  where  Christ  is  spoken 
of  as  "delivering  up  the  Kingdom  to  God,  even  the 
Father  "  and  as  finally  becoming  himself  subjected  to  God 
"that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  The  second  point  is  the 
description  of  Christ's  lordship  or  glory  as  a  gift  conferred 
on  him  by  the  Father,  e.g.  the  Kvptorrj^  of  Christ  is  gra- 
ciously bestowed  uj)on  him  (^ixapLo-aro  avrw)  as  a  reward 
of  his  self-humiliation  (Phil.  ii.  9-11)  ;  Christ  died  and 
rose  "  that  he  might  reign  (or  be  Lord,  KVptevarf)  of  both 
the  dead  and  the  living"  (Rom.  xiv.  9).  Many  times  his 
resurrection  is  ascribed  to  the  power  of  God  (Rom.  vi.  4 ; 
1  Cor.  vi.  14;  2  Cor.  xiii.  4).  Moreover,  the  indwelling 
in  him  of  the  fulness  of  Deity  is  ascribed  to  a  free  act  of 
God :  "  It  pleased  (evhoKrjcrev)  [the  Father]  that  in  him 
should  all  the  fulness  (irav  to  irXr^pwixa)  dwell "  (Col.  i.  19). 

The  thoughts  presented  in  these  passages  are  not  to  be 
minimized   or   explained  away.      Christ   is    placed   in    a 

{St.  PauVs  Conception  of  Christ,  p.  143)  express  themselves  doubtfully. 
For  the  exegetical  considerations  on  both  sides,  see  the  articles  by  Drs. 
T.  Dwight  and  E.  Abbot  in  the  Journal  of  the  Society  for  Biblical  Litera- 
ture and  Exegesis,  1881.  Dr.  Abbot's  article  is  reprinted  in  his  Critical 
Essays. 


400  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

secondary  relation  to  God.  But  in  all  these  passages,  as 
it  appears  to  me,  the  apostle  is  approaching  the  subject 
from  the  historic  side,  rather  than  stating  what  Christ  is 
in  himself.  Exaltation  and  lordship  are  bestowed  upon 
him  as  a  reward  of  his  redemptive  work.  He  has  come 
to  his  throne  by  the  way  of  the  cross.  His  surrender  of 
the  Kingdom  to  the  Father  when  his  redemptive  work 
shall  be  complete  and  his  own  subjection  to  God  seem  to 
refer  to  the  completion  of  his  function  as  Saviour.  He 
will  surrender  his  commission  as  Redeemer  when  his  work 
is  complete,  so  that,  in  contrast  to  the  mediatorial  rule  of 
Christ,  God  may  be  the  immediate  ruler  in  all  the  subjects 
of  his  Kingdom.  "  The  fulness  "  of  all  divine  power  to 
bless  and  save  is,  indeed,  represented  as  bestowed  upon 
Christ  in  his  glorification.  But  this  description  does  not 
necessarily  conflict  with  the  possession  by  Christ  of  an 
essential  pre-temporal  glory.  The  apostle  certainly  did 
not  regard  the  two  ideas  as  mutually  exclusive,  since  he 
has  clearly  expressed  them  both.  John  has  reported  a 
word  of  Jesus  which  combines  the  two  :  "  Glorify  thou 
me  at  thy  side  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before 
the  world  was"  (xvii.  5).  It  is  quite  unwarranted  to  use 
the  idea  of  God's  glorification  of  Christ  following  his 
redemptive  work  as  a  means  of  discrediting  his  possession 
of  a  glory  with  God  before  the  world  was.^  In  the  mind 
of  Paul  these  two  ideas  went  together  and  were  the  coun- 
terparts of  each  other.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  they  are 
in  logical  conflict  except  for  a  Christology  which  ap- 
proaches them  with  purely  humanitarian  presuppositions. 
It  would  unduly  extend  the  limits  of  this  chapter  to 
review  at  length  the  various  speculations  of  critics  respect- 
ing the  sources  and  motives  of  Paul's  Christology.  Me- 
negoz  explains  it  by  reminding  us  that  the  apostolic  age 
was  the  period  of  the  incubation  of  Gnosticism.  Notions 
of  emanations,  incarnations,  and  hierarchies  of  super- 
natural beings  filled   the   air.     Alexandrian   specuhitions 

1  "The  sonship  of  Jesus  to  God  is  for  Paul  a  metaphysical  relation  of 
essence,  grounded  in  his  pre-teniporal  being  with  the  Father,  and  in  his 
spiritual  nature."     Lipsius  on  Gal.  iv.  4  in  the  Hand-Commentar. 


JESTJS   CHRIST  401 

upon  such  subjects  became  known  to  the  Jews  of  the 
Dispersion.  Thus  was  j)repared  a  soil  in  which  such 
theories  as  that  of  the  Logos,  the  firstborn  Son  of  God 
and  the  head  of  all  creation  naturally  sprang  up.  Chris- 
tian thought  adopted  and  worked  over  for  its  own  pur- 
poses the  conceptions  of  its  opponents. ^  A  favorite 
supposition  of  many  modern  writers,  e.g.  Baur,  Dorner, 
Holsten,  Hilgenfeld,  Hausrath,  Harnack,  and  Holtzmann, 
is  that  Paul  adopted  the  Philonic  notion  of  the  ideal, 
heavenly  man,  and  conceived  Christ  as  existing  before  his 
incarnation  as  an  archetypal  man.  On  behalf  of  this  view 
appeal  is  made  to  1  Cor.  xv.  47  :  "  The  second  man  is  of 
heaven  "  (ef  ovpavoii)  —  a  passage  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  referred  by  most  recent  interpreters,  not  to  the  pre- 
existent,  but  to  the  glorified  Christ.  This  view  is  some- 
times combined  with  certain  Jewish  elements  of  thought, 
such  as  the  personification  of  the  divine  word  and  wisdom. ^ 
Beyschlag  reduces  Paul's  Christology  to  a  personification 
of  a  principle  of  revelation  in  God  which,  he  thinks,  was 
due  to  his  unwarranted  confounding  of  an  idea  with  a 
person.  All  the  elements  of  Paul's  teaching  which  go 
beyond  a  purely  humanitarian  view  of  Christ  are  specu- 
lative additions.  When  these  are  subtracted,  what  re- 
mains is  this :  Christ  is  the  ideal  man  who  stands  in 
absolute  communion  with  God  and  in  whom  God  fully 
dwells. 2  As  we  are  here  concerned  only  with  the  exposi- 
tion and  not  with  the  refutation  of  Paul's  Christology, 
we  have  no  occasion  to  discuss  this  theory.  Respecting 
the  theories  that  Paul's  Christology  was  due  to  the  reaction 
upon  him  of  Gnostic  ideas  or  was  borrowed  from  Philo, 
I  regard  them  as  singularly  destitute  of  proof  and  in- 
trinsically improbable.  Paul  approached  the  subject  of 
Christ's  person  from  his  knowledge  of  him  as  a  historic 
personality,  supplemented  by  his  vivid  sense  of  his  exalta- 
tion to  heavenly  glory.     He  developed  his  view  of  Christ 

1  See  Le  Peche,  pp.  199-204. 

2  See   Pfleiderer,  Der  Paulhiismus,  pp.    115-123;    Beysclilag,   N.  T. 
Theol.  II.  63  sq.  ;  79  sq.  (Bk.  IV.  ch.  iii.  §§  7,  11). 

3  Op.  cit.  II.  00-88  (Bk.  IV.  ch.  iii.  §§  6-13). 

2d 


402  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

over  against  tlie  errors  which  were  rife  at  ^-Golossae,  and, 
to  some  extent,  in  terms  derived  from  these  speculations. 
He  no  doubt  saw  fully  realized  in  Christ  the  Old  Testa- 
ment personifications  of  God's  Avord  and  wisdom,  but  it 
is  quite  gratuitous  to  seek  the  motives  of  his  Christology 
either  in  Philo  or  in  Gnosticism. ^ 

1  Weizsacker  says :  "  We  need  not  turn  to  Philo's  notion  of  the  heavenly 
man,  as  ideal  man  ;  a  conception  existing  in  Palestinian  theology  is  suffi- 
cient." ...  "In  any  case,  Paul  has  stated  that  he  came  from  heaven, 
and  therefore  was  previously  existent  there."     Apos.  Age,  I.  145. 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE   DEATH  OF  CHRIST 

The  crucifixion  of  Jesus  was,  for  the  first  disciples, 
the  principal  obstacle  to  belief  in  his  messiahship.  After 
their  recovery  of  faith  in  him  through  the  resurrection, 
their  chief  problem  was,  how  to  reconcile  his  death  with 
his  messiahship  and  to  show  that  the  former  was  essential 
to  the  latter.  The  unbelieving  Jews  still  continued  to 
dwell  on  the  contradiction  between  an  ignominious  death 
and  the  Messianic  vocation.  This  was  "the  stumbling- 
block  of  the  cross"  (Gal.  v.  11 ;  1  Cor.  i.  23).  They 
seem  to  have  reasoned  thus  :  Jesus  is  an  impostor,  for  had 
he  been  the  true  Messiah,  he  could  not  have  suffered  the 
accursed  death  of  the  cross.  His  death  is  the  supreme 
proof  that  he  is  not  the  Messiah. 

We  have  seen  in  the  study  of  the  primitive  apostolic 
theology  how  the  earliest  Christians  sought  to  parry  this 
objection.  At  first  they  charged  the  death  of  Jesus  upon 
the  Jews  as  a  crime  and,  later,  sought  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment some  explanation  of  it  as  a  part  of  his  Messianic 
work.  But  the  apostle  Paul  was,  so  far  as  we  know,  the 
first  man  who  grappled  boldly  with  this  problem  and 
sought  to  prove  that  the  death  of  Jesus  on  tlie  crogs  was 
the  culmination  of  his  saving  work  and  the  crowning 
glory  of  his  Messianic  vocation.  To  the  primitive  Church 
the  death  of  Jesus  presented  itself  more  as  a  problem,  an 
event  to  be  explained  and  defended  against  the  view 
taken  of  it  by  the  Jews.  To  Paul  it  was  the  chief  glory 
of  the  Christian  faith,  the  fact  of  supreme  significance, 
the  primary  means  of  salvation.  They  came  at  the  sub- 
ject from  the  standpoint  of  the  popular  Jewish  Messianic 
expectations  which  they  had  shared ;  he  approached  it  in 

403 


404  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   PAUL 

the  liglit  of  liis  experience  in  wliich  the  glorified  Christ 
had  appeared  to  liim.  ThTs"  experience  had  shown  him 
that  Jesus  was  the  risen  and  glorified  Messiah.  He  now 
approached  every  question  from  that  fixed  conviction. 
It  was,  no  doubt,  from  that  beginning  that  he  developed 
his  views  of  Christ's  supernatural  being  and  of  the  mystic 
communion  with  him  of  his  followers  on  earth. 

If  this  was  Paul's  method  of  approach  to  the  subject  of 
Christ's  death,  it  will  be  evident  how  different  was  the 
original  motive  of  his  doctrine  from  tliat  which  underlies 
the  abstract  problem  as  to  the  relation  of  mercy  and  justice 
in  the  nature  of  God.  The  apostle's  teaching  gives  rise  to 
such  questions,  but  it  did  not  start  with  them.  It  is,  of 
course,  impossible  to  arrange  his  references  to  the  subject 
in  an  order  which  will  certainly  exhibit  the  logical  devel- 
opment of  the  subject  in  his  own  thoughts.  A  natural 
point  of  beginning,  however,  is  found  in  Gal.  iii.  13 : 
"  Christ  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  having 
become  a  curse  for  us :  for  it  is  written.  Cursed  is  every  one 
that  hangeth  on  a  tree."  It  is  reasonable  to  think  that 
we  have  in  these  words  a  reflection  of  the  way  in  which 
the  apostle  met  the  calumnies  of  the  Jews.  They  proved 
Jesus  a  pretender  from  the  Old  Testament,  which  declared 
that  a  crucified  one  is  accursed  of  God.  Paul  admits 
that  in  enduring  the  shameful  death  of  the  cross  he 
"became  a  curse,"  but  maintains  that  he  became  such,  not 
on  account  of  what  he  was,  but  on  our  account  (^uirep 
rj/jLcov^.  It  is  as  if  the  apostle  had  said:  Yes,  Jesus  was 
accursed,  as  the  Jews  sa}^ ;  he  was  subjected  to  the  most 
shameful  death  —  not  justly^  as  they  affirm,  but  vicariously ; 
he  bore  this  shame /or  us.  His  ignominious  death  proves 
nothing  against  him  but,  on  the  contrary,  shows  to  what 
a  depth  of  shame  he  was  willing  to  descend  in  order  that 
he  might  bless  and  save  men.  Thus  the  cross  is  not 
something  of  which  the  Christian  should  be  ashamed,  but 
something  in  which  he  should  rejoice.  It  is  the  symbol 
of  a  divine  condescension  and  pity  which,  in  order  to  save 
men,  stopped  not  short  of  that  pitch  of  shame  and  suffer- 
ing, the  death  of  the  cross.      Hence  the  apostle  says : 


THE   DEATH   OF   CHRIST  405 

"  Far  be  it  from  me  to  glory,  save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ"  (Gal.  vi.  14).  "The  word  of  the  cross"  is 
the  substance  of  his  preaching ;  it  is  "  the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation"  (1  Cor.  i.  18),  and  he  will  have  but  one 
object  of  knowledge  and  interest  —  "Jesus  Christ  and  him 
crucified"  (1  Cor.  ii.  2).i 

1  Professor  Everett  in  his  study  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation  entitled, 
The  Gospel  of  Paul,  very  properly  started  with  Gal.  iii.  13  ;  but  I  think 
he  has  interpreted  it  too  narrowly,  has  built  too  exclusively  upon  it,  and 
has  developed  from  it  a  series  of  unwarranted  inferences.  His  theory  is 
that  Christ's  endurance  of  the  curse  of  the  law  consisted  in  the  manner 
of  his  death,  namely,  crucifixion ;  that  as  cnicijied,  he  was  accursed,  that 
is,  ceremonially  unclean  and  so  free  from  the  law.  All  his  followers,  as 
being  crucified  with  him,  were  also  unclean,  and  hence  freed  from  the  law. 
For  him  and  them  the  law  was  abolished.  Their  redemption  from  sin 
followed  from  their  redemption  from  the  law,  because  sin  is  not  Imputed 
where  there  is  no  law  (Rom.  v.  13).  From  the  abolition  of  the  law  fol- 
lows the  breaking  down  of  the  wall  of  partition  between  the  Jews  and  the 
Gentiles  (Eph.  ii.  11-20).  Some  of  the  difficulties  of  this  theory  are  : 
(1)  It  lays  an  exaggerated  emphasis  upon  the/on7i  of  Christ's  death.  It 
is  the  death  itself  which  Paul  chiefly  emphasizes.  The  cross  is  a  synonym 
of  the  death  or  the  blood  of  Christ.  No  special  stress  is  laid  upon  cruci- 
fixion, except  to  emphasize  the  ignominy  of  the  death  (cf  Phil.  ii.  8). 
There  is  not  a  single  allusion  to  the  cross  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
which  contains  some  of  Paul's  most  significant  words  on  salvation  through 
the  death  of  Christ.  Cf.  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  p.  137.  (2)  It 
emphasizes  far  more  than  Paul  does  the  relation  of  Christ's  crucifixion  to 
the  ceremonial  law.  In  the  theory  in  question  this  relation  is  absolutely 
central  and  controlling  ;  with  Paul  it  is  quite  incidental.  Paul  does  not 
dwell  (unless  he  does  so  in  Gal.  iii.  13),  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
does  (xiii.  10-13),  upon  the  ceremonial  pollution  involved  in  the  cross. 
And  if  he  had  done  so,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  he  could  have  derived  from 
that  idea  the  elements  of  his  doctrine  of  redemption.  (3)  It  is  not  natural 
to  ascribe  to  Paul  a  view  on  this  subject  so  contrary  to  historic  fact  as  is 
the  idea  that  Jesus  was  accursed  by  the  Jewish  law  merely  or  mainly 
because  he  was  crucified.  From  the  Jewish  standpoint,  he  was  accursed 
primarily  because  he  was  condemned  by  the  constituted  authorities  as  a 
malefactor.  The  form  of  his  death  was  determined,  no  doubt,  by  the 
Roman  domination.  (4)  Paul's  peculiar  mystical  idea  that  Christians 
are  "crucified  with  Christ"  is  treated  in  this  theory  as  if  it  had  primary 
reference  to  ceremonial  pollution.  This  is  impossible.  It  refers  to  spir- 
itual renewal,  ethical  death  to  sin.  Dr.  Everett's  theory  of  the  salvation 
of  believers  by  being  crucified  with  Christ  quite  overlooks  the  real  genesis 
and  nature  of  Paul's  faith-mysticism.  (5)  The  early  Christians  did  not 
regard  themselves  as  accursed  in  the  eye  of  the  law  by  reason  of  their 
faith  in  Christ.  The  Jews,  generally  speaking,  did  not  so  regard  them. 
The  Jewish  Christians  remained  for  a  long  time  within  the  Jewish  Church 


406  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

Paul's  doctrine  is,  then,  that  Christ  died  in  order  to 
save  men.  He  "  died,  on  behalf  of  our  sins "  (^uirep  tmv 
dfjiapTLCJV  rjfjLomTT^^OT.  xv.  3),  that  is,  to  save  us  from 
them.  But  how  should  a  shameful  death  be  able  to  secure 
such  a  result  ?  How  does  such  a  result  proceed  from  such 
a  cause  ?  We  soon  discover  that  the  ignominy  of  Christ's 
death  is  but  one  aspect  of  the  case,  and  is  significant  only 
as  expressing  his  great  self-abnegation.  Paul  emphasizes 
the  further  fact  that  he  was  a  pure  and  holy  being  who 

without  calling  out  any  such  reproach.  Paul  claimed  to  be  a  genuine 
Israelite  to  the  last,  and  declared  that  Christians  were  the  true  circum- 
cision and  that  by  faith  in  Christ  the  law,  which  had  been  preparatory  to 
him,  was  most  truly  honored.  (6)  Dr.  Everett  takes  a  passage  which  is 
intended  to  bring  out  a  single  aspect  of  Christ's  sufferings  and  makes  it 
the  basis  of  a  whole  theory.  The  passage  emphasizes  the  shamefulness 
of  Christ's  self-humiliation  to  the  death  of  the  cross  in  terms  of  Deut.  xxi. 
23.  Dr.  Everett  treats  it  as  if  it  were  meant  to  be  a  statement  of  the  sav- 
ing significance  of  Christ's  death  in  general,  and  even  carries  it  over  in 
application  to  the  position  of  his  followers  before  the  law.  The  inferences 
drawn  from  this  single  passage  are  made  determining  for  the  interpreta- 
tion of  all  other  passages,  so  far  as  they  are  touched  upon.  The  theory 
is  built  upon  an  undue  elaboration  of  a  single  verse.  Secondarily,  the 
theory  makes  use  of  Gal.  ii.  19:  "I,  through  the  law,  died  to  the  law." 
While  many  interpreters  understand  this  passage  in  a  sense  similar  to 
that  advocated  by  Dr.  Everett,  I  must  regard  it  as  having  reference  to 
Paul's  conception  of  ethical  death  to  sin.  (7)  It  is  not  clear  how  one 
could  abolish  a  law  by  undergoing  its  curse,  especially  in  the  mere  sense 
of  ceremonial  pollution.  It  is  certain  that  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  abolition 
of  the  law  was  not  derived  from  such  premises.  The  law  passed  away 
because  it  had  served  its  pedagogic  function,  because  it  was  an  imperfect 
institute  and  could  not  bestow  life.  Paul  never  intimates  that  it  was 
abolished  because  Christ  and  his  followers  became  ceremonially  polluted. 
I  can  only  agree  with  Holtzmann  when  he  says  of  Dr.  Everett's  theory  : 
"  Evidently  there  is  here  attached  to  the  incidental  argument  of  Gal.  iii. 
13  —  which  can  only  be  justly  estimated  in  connection  with  iii.  10  —  an 
entirely  foreign  chain  of  ideas,  in  the  sense  of  Heb.  xiii.  10-13."  Neutest. 
Theol.  II.  108.  See  critical  notes  on  Professor  Everett's  theory  in  Briggs's 
Messiah  of  the  Apostles^  pp.  136,  137  andinBruce's  St.  PaiiVs  Conception 
of  Christianity.,  pp.  184-186.  The  fullest  review  of  it  which  I  have  seen 
is  by  Professor  C.  M.  Mead  in  the  Hartford  Seminary  Becord  for  Novem- 
ber, 1896.  Dr.  Everett  replies  to  Drs.  Bruce  and  Briggs  in  The  New  World 
for  March,  1896.  He  still  defends  his  method  as  "  the  only  true  one,"  and 
regards  the  exegetical  results  of  his  critics  as  determined  by  ' '  dependence 
upon  traditional  dogma"  and  as  being  "only  in  the  slightest  degree  the 
result  of  New  Testament  exegesis."  One  can  but  wonder  whether  he 
would  attribute  to  Holtzmann  also  a  bias  in  favor  of  traditional  dogma. 


THE   DEATH   OF    CHRIST  407 

submitted  to  be  treated  as  a  sinner  for  our  sakes :  "  Him 
wlio  knew  no  sin  God  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf  (virep 
r)fJLO)v  dfiapTLav  iiroLi^crev)  ^  that  we  might  become  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  him"  (2  Cor.  v.  21).  This  passage 
cannot  mean  less  than  that  the  sinless  Christ  endured  a 
lot  which  he  did  not  personally  deserve,  and  underwent 
an  experience  of  suffering  such  as  belonged  to  sinful  man, 
rather  than  to  him,  and  that  he  did  this  to  secure  the  sal- 
vation of  men.  I  will  here  place  together  the  principal 
additional  passages  which  we  have  to  consider,  arranging 
them  for  convenience  as  follows  ;  (1)  Those  which  simply 
connect  Christ's  death  with  salvation  from  sin,  e.g.:  "  Who 
died  for  us  Qirepl  rjiJiOiv)^  that  whether  we  wake  or  sleep 
(that  is,  live^r  die),  we  should  live  together  with  him" 
(1  Thess.  V.  10);  "Who  gave  himself  (that  is,  gave  him- 
self up  to  death)  for  our  sins  (irepl  tcjp  afxaprLcov  97/xwz^), 
that  he  might  deliver  us  out  of  this  present  evil  world" 
(Gal.  i.  4);  "  Who  was  delivered  up  (to  death,  irapeSoOr]') 
on  account  of  our  trespasses  "  (^Sca  ra  TrapaTrrco/jLara  r]/jL(ov, 
Rom.  iv.  25) ;  "  God,  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness 
of  sinful  flesh  and  for  sin  (^irepl  afiaprCa^i).}  condemned  sin 
in  the  flesh"  (Rom.  viii.  3);  "  He  that  spared  not  his  own 
Son,  but  delivered  him  up  (to  death,  irapihwKev)  for  us  all 
(Jjirep  ■^fjLcov  irdvTwv).,  how  shall  he  not  also  with  him  freely 
give  us  all  things  ?  .  .  .  Who  is  he  that  shall  condemn  ? 
(No  one  shall,  for)  it  is  Christ  who  died  "  (Rom.  viii.  32, 
34);  ''  One  died  for  all  (yirep  TravTwv).,  therefore  all  died" 
(2  Cor.  V.  15) ;  "  For  to  this  end  Christ  died,  and  lived 
again,  that  he  might  be  Lord  of  both  the  dead  and  the 
living  "  (Rom.  xiv.  9)  ,•  Christ  has  "  blotted  out  the  bond 
written  in  ordinances  that  was  against  us  (the  laAv's  ver- 
dict of  condemnation)  .  .  .  nailing  it  to  the  cross  "  (Col. 
ii.  14).  (2)  Passages  which  express  the  idea  of  a  redemp- 
tion (a7roXvT/o&)(7i9)  or  deliverance  of  men  as  by  purchase, 

1  The  K.V.  renders  these  words  "  as  an  offering  for  sin  "  in  considera- 
tion of  the  Septuagint  usage  which  employs  this  phrase  to  denote  the 
"sin-offering."  It  is  improbable  that  Paul  uses  the  phrase  in  this  tech- 
nical sense.  His  use  of  irepi  elsewhere  (see  1  Thess.  v.  10 ;  Gal.  i.  4  ; 
Rom.  viii.  3,  quoted  above)  favors  the  ordinary  force  of  the  preposition 
here,  viz.  "on  behalf  of  sin." 


408  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

e.g. :   "  Christ  redeemed  (i^jjyopaaep)  lis  from  the  curse  of 
the  law,  etc.  (Gah  iii.  13)  ,•  "  God  sent  forth  his  Son  .  .  . 
that  he  might  redeem  (e^a^yopdarf)  those  under  the  law  " 
(Gal.     iv.    4) ;   "  In    whom   we    have    our    redemption " 
(aTToXvT/oftxJt?),  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins"  (CoL  i.  13; 
cf.  Eph.  i.  T  ;  also  1  Cor.  i.  30  where  Christ  is  called  our 
BifcaLoavPT],  dyiaafjid^  /cat  aTroXvrpwai^')  ;   "  Ye  were  bought 
with  a  price  "  (1  Cor.  vi.  20  ;  vii.  23  ;   cf.l  Tim.  ii.  6  and 
Tit.  ii.  14,  where  the  figure  of  a  ransom  is  employed)  ; 
"  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the  redemp- 
tion that  is  in  Christ  Jesus:  whom  God  set   forth  as  a 
propitiation  (l\a(jTr)piov),  through  faith,  by  his  blood,  to 
show  his  righteousness,  because  of  the  passing  over  of  the 
sins  done  aforetime,  in  the  forbearance  of  God ;  for  the 
showing, I  say,  of  his  righteousness  at  this  present  season: 
that  he  might  himself  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of    him 
that  hath  faith  in  Jesus"  (Rom.  iii.   24-26).     (3)  Pas- 
saf>"es  which  speak  of  a  reconciliation  (^KaraWayrj,  KaraX- 
\daaeiv)  between  God:'  and  merri5y'^the  death  of  Christ : 
"  For  if  while  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  (^fcarrjX- 
Xdyi]/jL€v}  to  God  through  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more, 
being  reconciled  (/caraXXaye-vre^),  shall  we  be  saved  by 
his   life  ;  and  not  only  so,  but   we   also   rejoice  in  God 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  we  have 
now  received  the  reconciliation  "  (^KaraXXay^v^  Rom.   v. 
10,    11) ;   "  But   all   things    are    of    God,  who  reconciled 
(fcaraXXd^avTO^)  us  to  himself  through  Christ,  and  gave 
unto  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation  (^rijv  haKoviav  ttj^ 
/caTaXXayri<;)  ;  to  wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling 
the  world  unto  himself  (^Koa/Jbov  KaraXXdcra-cov  eavro))^  not 
reckoning  unto  them  their   trespasses,  and  having  com- 
mitted  unto    us    the   word    of    reconciliation.      We    are 
ambassadors   therefore    on   behalf    of    Christ,   as   though 
God  were  intreating  by  us  :    we  beseech  you   on  behalf 
of    Christ,    be   ye   reconciled   to    God"   (2   Cor.    v.    18- 
20).     Beside  this  passage  should  be  placed  Col.  i.  20-22, 
where  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  reconciling  (^airoKaraXXd^ai) 
all  things  unto  God  (or  unto  himself),  whether  things  on 
earth  or  in  the  heavens,  making  peace  between  himself  and 


THE   DEATH   OF    CHRIST  409 

them  by  the  blood  of  his  cross,  and  also  as  reconciling  the 
readers  who  had  formerly  been  enemies,  through  his  death ; 
also  Eph.  ii.  16,  where  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  said  to  have 
been  reconciled  and  united  through  the  cross.  These  are 
the  passages  from  which  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  saving  im- 
port of  Christ's  death  must  be  derived.  The  problem  is 
bound  up  Avith  the  meaning  of  four  terms  or  phrases  :  (1) 
vTrep  or  irepl  '^/jlcov  or  tmv  d/jLaprLMv  rjiJLMV — Paul's  doctrine 
of  substitution  ;  (2)  aiToXvTpcoo-L^  and  kindred  terms  — 
Paul's  idea  of  redemption  ;  (3)  IXaaT/jpcov  or  propitiation  ;  ^ 
(4)  KaraWayi]  and  cognates  —  the  conception  of  recon- 
ciliation. 

We  naturally  seek  the  elements  of  Paul's  doctrine  of 
salvation  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  in  so  doing  we  en- 
counter two  difficulties.  The  first  is  the  difficulty  of  de- 
termining the  exact  meaning  of  tJiQ^sacrifkial  system,  and 
the  second  arises  from  the  fact  that  Paul  has  made  so  few 
references  to  this  system.  The  most  noticeable  instance 
is  Eph.  V.  2  :  "  Even  as  Christ  also  loved  you,  and  gave 
himself  up  for  us,  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  an 
odor  of  a  sweet  smell "  —  a  passage  in  which  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  is  conceived  of  as  a  gift  pleasing  to  God.  It 
seems  to  me  clear  that  while  there  is  important  truth 
in  the  theories  that  the  sacrifices  were  gifts  to  God,  and 
that  they  expressed  communion  with  God,  it  is  also  true 
that  they  expressed  —  at  any  rate,  some  of  them  —  the 
consciousness  of  sin,  and  were  considered  as  a  means  of 
obtaining  its  forgiveness.  In  the  later  period  of  Israel, 
says  W.  Robertson  Smith,  "the  victim  whose  life  was 
treated  as  equivalent  to  that  of  a  man,  was  a  sacrifice  to 
justice,  accepted  in  atonement  for  the  guilt  of  the  wor- 
shipper." ^  There  was  a  certain  substitution  in  the  sacri- 
ficial system.  It  was  not,  however,  a  strict  and  literal, 
but  a  symbolic  and  representative,  substitution.  We  natu- 
rally look  for  something  similar  to  this  in  Paul's  doctrine 

1  Of  the  words  kindred  to  t'Xewy,  IXda-KeaOai,  Paul  uses  only  this  one, 
Rom.  iii.  25. 

2  Beligion  of  the  Semites,  p.  419.  Cf.  The  0.  T.  in  the  Jewish  Church, 
pp.  228,  229. 


410  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

of  the  death  of  Christ.  He  does  not,  indeed,  say  that 
Christ  died  instead  of  us  (^avrl  tj/jlcov')  ;  no  such  literal  and 
exact  substitution  as  tliat  phrase  would  imply,  is  affirmed. 
Yet  the  repeated  affirmation  that  he  died  on  our  behalf 
and  for  the  sake  of  our  sins,  taken  in  connection  with 
other  statements,  does  imply  some  kind  of  a  substitution 
of  Christ's  sufferings  and  death  in  place  of  the  sinner's 
punishment.  The  desert  of  sin  is  penalty  ;  Christ  by  his 
death  averted  that  penalty.  In  that  sense  his  death  was 
substituted  for  the  penalty.  Paul  uses  no  expressions 
which  imply  a  sameness  in  kind  or  a  precise  equivalence 
between  Christ's  sufferings  and  the  penalty  due  to  sin. 
Yet  in  some  way  the  former  are  regarded  as  meeting  the 
ends  of  the  latter.  He  was  "made  sin  for  our  sakes" 
(2  Cor.  V.  21).  He  so  far  took  the  sinner's  place  as  to 
suffer  for  him.  He  was  treated  as  a  sinner  in  order  that, 
in  consequence  of  what  happened  to  him,  sinners  may  be- 
come righteous  before  God.  Paul's  idea  certainly  is  that 
Christ  was  so  far  substituted  for  us  that  his  sufferings  and 
death  accomplish  in  God's  moral  order  the  end  which  pun- 
ishment Avould  accomplish,  namely,  the  expression  of  God's 
\  holy  displeasure  against  sin  (eV3et|i9  tt}?  hiKaioavvr]^  avrov, 
Rom.  iii.  26). 

But  it  would  not  follow  that  Christ's  sufferings  would 
have,  in  Paul's  view,  the  moral  quality  of  punishment,  or 
that  Christ  would  be,  as  the  sinner  is,  the  object  of  the 
divine  wrath.  Paul's  conception  of  substitution  does  not 
involve,  but  excludes,  this  conception.  Christ  remains 
throughout  the  holy  and  sinless  Son  of  God,  the  object 
of  the  Father's  good-pleasure.  Paul  represents  God  in 
almost  an  anthropomorphic  way  as  rejoicing  in  the  work 
of  Christ  and  as  rewarding  him  for  it  afterwards  (Phil.  ii. 
8-11).  The  "  one  act  of  righteousness"  (ev  htKaicofia^  Rom. 
V.  18),  in  which  Paul  sees  the  crowning  proof  of  God's 
favor,  was  the  death  of  Christ.  His  tasting  of  the  accursed 
death,  his  sharing  of  the  lot  of  sinners,  was  not  at  all 
personal,  but  entirely  representative.  Paul  does  not  say 
that  Christ  was  accursed,  but  that  he  "  became  a  curse  on 
our  account"  Qyev6^evQ<i  virep  rjfjLcov  Kardpa,  Gal.  iii.  13). 


THE   DEATH   OF   CHRIST  411 

In  this  passage  the  apostle  carefully  refrains  from  assert- 
ing that  the  curse  which  the  law  pronounced  against  sin 
and  that  which  Christ,  in  his  crucifixion,  endured  are  the 
same  in  kind.  He  does  not  write  :  "  Christ  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law  (eV  tt}?  Kardpa^  rov  vofioii)^ 
having  become,  or  having  taken  upon  himself  the  curse  of 
the  law;''  but,  ''having  beconie  a  ^w?'se "  (Kardpa).  If 
Paul  had  meant  to  say  that  Christ  endured  the  precise 
curse  which  the  law  pronounces  upon  sin,  he  should  have 
said  that  Christ  became  r/  Kardpa  or  rj  /cardpa  rov  vofMov. 
That  statement  would  have  affirmed  the  moral  identity 
of  the  curse  pronounced  upon  sin  and  that  endured  by 
Christ;  but  such  a  statement  he  instinctively  avoided. 
In  like  manner  in  2  Cor.  v.  21  it  is  necessary  to  under- 
stand dfiapriav  iiroC'qaev  under  the  limitations  imposed 
upon  the  idea  by  rov  /jltj  yvovra  d/jLapriav  and  virep  rjjxixiv. 
The  apostle  is  careful  not  to  say  that  Christ  was  a  sinner, 
or  that  personally  he  was  regarded  as  such ;  he  says  that 
he  "^^as  made  sin  for  us  "  (2  Cor.  v.  21);  that  is,  he  was, 
for  the  sake  of  others,  and  not  for  his  own  sake,  treated 
as  a  sinner.  His  experience  of  the  consequences  of  sin 
was  entirely  vicarious  and  representative.  These  con- 
siderations look  towards  the  conclusion  that  with  Paul 
substitution  means,  not  the  substitution  of  Christ's  punish- 
ment for  our  punishment,  but  the  substitution  of  his 
sufferings,  which  were  not  of  the  nature  of  punishment, 
for  our  punishment ;  in  other  words,  the  substitution  of 
another  method  of  revealing  and  vindicating  the  divine 
righteousness  in  place  of  the  method  of  punishment.  God 
in  his  grace  adopts  another  course  of  procedure  with 
sinful  man  than  that  of  retributive  justice  and  a  course 
which  more  fully  displays  his  glorious  perfections. 

The  passages  which  speak  of  Christ's  saving  work 
under  the  figure  of  a  jcansom  or  purchase  strongly  con- 
firm this  conclusion.  The  death  of  Christ  is  the  price 
of  man's  salvation ;  that  is,  it  represents  the  greatness  of 
God's  self-sacrificing  love.  It  accomplishes  the  ends  of 
God's  moral  government  more  fully  than  mere  retributive 
justice  could  do.     And  the  reason  why  it  does  so  must  be 


412  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    PAUL 

that  it  is  a  completer  expression  of  God's  entire  nature 
than  punishment  would  be.  The  price  is  infinitely  great. 
It  represents  the  absolutely  boundless  and  holy  love  of 
God.  Punishment  would  be  partial  in  comparison  with 
this.  It  would  evince  but  one  aspect  of  God's  being. 
But  the  humiliation,  sufferings,  and  death  of  the  Son  of 
God,  prompted  by  infinite  love,  represent  and  satisfy  the 
total  perfection  of  God.  If  Paul  has  expressed  this 
sublime  truth  in  commercial  and  legal  analogies,  it  need 
cause  us  no  ditliculty.  The  ancient  theology  which  built 
upon  these  analogies  as  if  they  were  scientific  formulas, 
and  the  modern  theology  which  rejects  them  altogether, 
are  equally  unjust  to  the  thought  of  the  apostle.  The 
categories  of  law  were  the  forms  of  thought  in  which 
he  had  been  trained.  But  for  him  the  judicial  and  the 
ethical  coincided.  When  it  is  said  that,  according  to  Paul, 
Christ  rendered  satisfaction  to  God's  violated  law  and 
so  enabled  him  to  suspend  its  verdict  against  sinful  man, 
several  un-Pauline  inferences  are  likely  to  be  involved. 
The  essence  of  Paul's  thought  does  not  lie  in  such  notions 
as  those  of  a  deified  law,  quantitative  equivalents,  and 
literal  substitutions  and  transfers,  but  in  the  conception 
of  a  fuller  realization  in  Christ  of  God's  perfections  in  his 
treatment  of  mankind  than  was  otherwise  possible. 

The  nearest  approach  which  Paul  has  made  -ttra  theo- 
retic statement  of  the  principle  of  redemption  through 
Christ's  substitution  for  us  is  found  in  Rom.  iii.  24-26. 
There  are  two  important  terms  in  the  passage  whose 
meaning  is  disputed,  namely,  ^xawavprj  Oeov  and  IXaarrj- 
ptov.  Some  would  interpret  SifcaLoavvrj  Oeov  as  denoting 
God's  goodness  in  general  or  his  self -consistency,  the 
accord  of  his  will  and  action  with  his  love ;  while  others 
thinlv  that  it  is  here  a  name  for  his  attitude  towards  sin, 
the  law  and  penalty  side  of  the  divine  nature.  I  hold  this 
latter  view  on  the  ground  of  the  context.  The  passage 
sets  forth  the  method  of  God's  grace  in  saving  sinners. 
He  seems  to  have  been  unduly  lenient  towards  sin  in  past 
ages,  says  the  apostle  ;  but  his  method  of  salvation  in 
Christ  rescues  his  procedure  from  such  an  appearance  and 


THE   DEATH   OF   CHRIST  413 

adequately  and  fully  exhibits  his  righteousness.  This 
righteousness,  therefore,  is  that  quality  in  God  which 
seemed  to  be  in  abeyance  in  the  former  "passing  over  of 
sins,"  but  which  is  now  manifested.  It  must  be  the  at- 
TrTBute  which  would  have  been  exhibited  in  punishment, 
that  is,  punitive  righteousness.  It  is  here  kindred  to  the 
op'yri  6eov.  'IXacrrrjpiov  is  understood  by  some  to  mean  the 
Kapporeth  or  mercy-seat  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (as  in 
Heb.  ix.  5  ;  cf.  Ex.  xxv.  17-20).  In  this  case,  it  is 
sometimes  contended,  the  meaning  probably  is:  God  set 
forth  Christ,  in  his  death,  as  the  antitj;pical  mercy-seat, 
the  one  in  whom  his  gracious  saving  presence  was  su- 
premely manifested.  The  principal  objections  to  this 
meaning  are  that  if  the  mercy-seat  were  meant,  IXaarrjpiov 
should  have  the  article  (as  in  Hebrews) ;  that  it  would  be 
incongruous,  and  without  parallel  elsewhere,  to  call  Christ 
the  lid  of  the  ark,  and  that  Paul  is  not  so  strongly  influ- 
enced by  Septuagint  usage  as  is  the  author  of  Hebrews. 
The  word  is  more  commonly,  and,  in  my  opinion,  correctly, 
taken  in  its  etymological  sense  as  a  means  of  rendering 
favorable,  Suhiemittel^  Expiatorium.  As  a  IXaarrjpiov 
Christ  is  designated  as  a  means  of  effecting  a  reconciliation 
between  the  holy  God  and  sinful  man.  His  suffering  and 
death  proclaimed  God's  righteous  displeasure  towards  sin 
and  removed  the  obstacle  to  a  favorable  treatment  of  sin- 
ful man.i  How  the  death  of  Christ  avails  to  express  his 
repudiation  and  condemnation  of  sin,  we  are  not  told. 
But  that  it  does  so  the  apostle  plainly  asserts.  The  death 
of  Christ  expresses  the  verdict  of  the  divdne  holiness  upon 
sin.  In  that  death  God's  holy  nature  is  satisfied  by 
asserting  itself,  and  by  evincing  as  over  against  an  appar- 
ent laxity,  the  severity  of  his  condemnation  against  sin. 
In  this  way  the  ends  of  penalty  —  the  exhibition  of  God's 
seTf^preserving  holiness  —  are  met.     In  Christ  God  pur- 

1  "It  is  impossible  to  get  rid  from  this  passage  of  the  double  idea: 
(1)  of  a  sacHtice  ;  (2)  of  a  sacrifice  which  is  propitiatory.  .  .  .  And, 
further,  when  we  ask,  who  is  propitiated  ?  the  answer  can  only  be  '  God,' 
Nor  is  it  possible  to  separate  this  propitiation  from  the  death  of  the 
Son."     Sanday,   Comm.  on  Hoinans,  in  loco. 


414  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  PAUL 

sues  a  method  which  illustrates  alike  his  goodness  and  his 
severity,  that  is,  reveals,  vindicates,  and  satisfies  his  whole 
moral  nature.  That  this  is,  in  substance,  Paul's  thought 
in  this  passage  is  the  verdict  of  the  great  majority  of  in- 
terpreters of  all  schools. 

We  have  next  to  notice  the  passages  which  speak  of 
reconciliation  between  man  and  God  by  the  death  of 
Christ.  "We  were  reconciled  to  God  through  the  death 
of  his  Son"  (Rom.  v.  10).  Is  this  reconciliation  con- 
ceived of  as  accomplished  solely  by  a  change  in  men^  as  is 
so  often  said,  or  is  it  mutual,  involving  a  changed  attitude 
on  the  part  of  God  as  well  as  on  man's  part  ?  The  con- 
text favors  the  latter  view.  The  apostle  is  speaking  of 
men  being  "saved  from  the  wrath  of  God"  (y.  9).  They 
were  enemies  (e^^/oot',  v.  10)  in  the  sense  of  being  objects 
of  that  wrath.  The  reconciliation,  therefore,  must  have 
fulfilled  the  conditions  on  which  this  holy  displeasure  of 
God  might  no  longer  be  directed  towards  sinful  man,  as 
well  as  have  secured  a  change  of  attitude  towards  God  on 
man^s.^art.  The  reconciliation  comes  to  man  from  God 
(y.  11) ;  it  is  not  directly  ascribed  to  any  act  or  change  in 
man.  Quite  as  clearly  is  the  Godward  aspect  of  the  rec- 
onciliation recognized  in  2  Cor.  v.  18-20.  "  God  was  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself"  (y.  19).  But 
how  does  he  do  this  ?  The  apostle  continues  :  "  not  reckon- 
ing unto  them  their  trespasses."  The  reconciliation  in- 
volves a  gracious  procedure  instead  of  a  penal  procedure 
in  dealing  with  sin,  on  the  basis  of  which  men  are  besought 
to  come  into  accord  with  God.  In  Col.  i.  20-22  the  thought 
i  is  more  general.  Here  the  reconciliation  is  the  unifying 
and  harmonizing  of  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth,  and 
no  intimation  is  given  respecting  its  method  beyond  the 
statement  that  it  is  to  be  accomplished  by  the  death  of 
Christ.  In  Eph.  ii.  16  the  death  of  Christ  is  regarded  as 
a  means  of  uniting  Jew  and  Gentile. 

Such  are  the  principal  representations  of  the  saving 
significance  of  the  death  of  Christ  in  the  teaching  of 
Paul.  It  would  be  unjust  to  suppose  that  Paul  found 
this  meaniivg  in  Christ's  death  considered  merely  as  an 


THE   DEATH   OF   CHRIST  415 

isolated  event.  The  person  of  the  Saviour  gave  divine 
meaning  to  his  sufferings,  and  Paul  perpetually  regarded 
them  in  the  light  of  his  resurrection  and  glorified  life  in 
heaven.  Hence  he  can  say  that  Christ  "  was  raised  for 
our  justification"  (Rom.  iv.  25)  and  that  "we  are  saved 
by  his  life"  (Rom  v.  10),  that  is,  by  the  union  of  faith 
and  love  with  him  who  lives  and  reigns  in  heaven.  Paul 
seems  to  have  conceived  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  fulfilling 
a  condition  precedent  to  salvation,  not,  indeed,  in  time,  but 
in  principle,  for  God  had  always  been  saving  men.  The 
death  expresses  for  his  mind  the  fulfilment  of  a  condition 
of  the  operation  of  God's  grace,  namely,  such  a  satisfac- 
tion of  the  claims  of  righteousness  that  this  righteousness 
need  not  be  manifested  in  punishment.  1  It  is  regarded  as 
an  initiation  or  founding  of  salvation,  and,  in  that  sense, 
as  the  primary  saving  deed.  It  safeguards  the  divine 
self-consistency  in  forgiveness.  Paul  conceives  of  the 
death  of  Christ  as  doing  this,  because  it  is  experienced  in 
place  of  our  punishment,  and,  even  more  completely  than 
punishment  could  do,  attests  and  vindicates  the  inviolable 
holiness  of  God,  which  is  the  premiss  of  salvation.  If 
theology  will  follow  Paul  beyond  this  point,  and  elaboTate, 
on  Pauline  principles,  a  philosophy  of  atonement,  it  must 
seek  to  show  the  7'ationale  of  this  substitution ;  how  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  were  competent  to  meet  the 
ends  of  penalty  and  so  to  prove  an  evhei^L^  rrj^  hiKaiocrvvri^ 
6eov.  For  the  philosophy  of  religion  Paul  carries  us  only 
to  the  beginning,  and  not  to  the  end,  of  the  problem  of 
atonement  to  which  his  own  principles  give  rise.^ 

The  principal  elements  of  Paul's  thought  on  the  sub- 
ject in  hand  are  as  follows  :  (1)  Salvation  originates  in 
the  divine  love  and  mercy  (Rom.  v.  8 ;  viii.  32  ;  Eph.  ii. 
4,  5).  (2)  But  there  is  an  aspect  of  God's  ethical  nature 
which  leads  him  to  disapprove  sin  (op^rj  or  StKatoG-vvrj 
deov).  This  also  must  be  expressed  in  any  method  of  sal- 
vation which  he  adopts.     (3)  The  opyrj  Oeov  would  by  itself 

1  In  my  Pauline  Theology^  pp.  243-258,  I  have  followed  out  the  logical 
implications  of  Paul's  doctrine  somewhat  further  than  my  present  purpose 
requires  me  to  do. 


416  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

lead  to  tlie  punisliment  of  sin ;  but  it  is  not  hy  itself.  God 
saves  according  to  his  whole  nature.  (4)  In  the  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  Christ  the  self-respecting  holiness  of 
God,  his  necessary  attitude  towards  sin,  is  revealed  and 
satisfied.  Thus  the  attribute  which  conditions  the  opera- 
tion of  the  divine  grace  in  forgiveness  realizes  its  most 
perfect  expression.  (5)  God  does  not  substitute  Christ 
in  punishment  for  sinners.  He  substitutes  for  punish- 
ment another  course  of  proceeding  with  sinners  which  is 
not  punishment,  but  which,  even  more  adequately  than 
punishment  would  do,  expresses  the  ill  desert  of  sin.  The 
^iffexia^  of  Christ,  which  are  graciously  substituted  for 
the  sinner's  "punishment,  are  not  regarded  by  Paul  as 
themselves  penal.  (6)  Thus  sin  is  pardoned  in  accord 
with  absolute  righteousness.  Benevolence  and  holiness 
are  equally  manifested  and  realized  in  tlie  work  of  Christ. 
What  is  done  is  righteously,  as  well  as  graciously,  done. 
Mercy  and  justice  are  equally  satisfied,  and  both  "the 
goodness  and  the  severity  of  God  "  equally  illustrated. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

JUSTIFICATION 

The   death   and   resurrection   of   Christ  represent,  to 
Paul's  mind,  God's  objective  provision  for  man's  salva- 
tion.   Jjiatitoi^ion  is  a  name  for  the  way  in  which  the 
saving  benefits  of  Christ's  work  are  made  available  for 
the  individual.     The  motive  of  the  doctrine  in  the  form 
which  it  has  assumed  with  Paul  is  found  partly  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  partly  in  his  polemic  against  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation  by  works  of  the  law.     The  Old  Testa- 
ment frequently  portrays   God's  approval  of  men  under 
the  form  of  a  judgment  or  verdict  of  acquittal.     God's 
relation  to  men  is  often  represented   according  to   legal 
analogies.     In  the  later  Judaism  the  juristic  method  of 
thought  concerning  God  and  his  relations  to  men  was  the 
prevailing  one.     "Justification"  and  "justify"  were  com-  | 
mon  terms  in  the  vocabulary  of  Jewish  thought.     Paul  I 
naturally  carried  them  over  into  his  exposition  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine.     But  the  use  which  he  made  of  the  idea  in 
question  was  largely  determined  by  the  demands  of  his 
controversy  with  the  Judaizers.     They  conceived  justifica-~\ 
tion  as  a  result  of  human  achievement ;  he  conceived  it  as   ^ 
a  free  gift  of  God's  grace.     To  their  minds  the  condition  ^ 
of  its  attainment  was  a  strict  performance  of  the  require-  | 
ments  of  the  law  ;  to  his  it  was  an  act  of  self-surrender  ^ 
and  of  trust. 1 

1  M^n^goz  connects  Paul's  doctrines  of  expiation  and  justification  by- 
means  of  Rom,  vi.  7  :  "  He  that  hatli  died  is  justified  from  sin."  His  ex- 
position is  :  Clirlst  by  liis  death  has  satisfied  the  law,  has  gone  free  from 
it,  and  is  justified  before  it.  And  the  proof  of  this  justification  of  Christ 
is  his  resurrection.  In  lilce  manner  the  sinner  who  dies  with  him  partakes 
in  his  justification  and  is  himself  justified.  Hence  he  "  was  raised  for  our 
2e  417 


418  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

N;  Justification  means  essentially  the  same  as  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  (^a(f}€(TL<;  aixapncov).  Paul  uses  them  synony- 
mously in  Acts  xiii,  38,  39.  In  Rom.  iv.  5-8  justification, 
the  reckoning  of  faith  for  righteousness,  the  imputation 
of  righteousness  apart  from  works,  the  forgiveness  of 
iniquities,  and  the  non-imputation  of  sin,  are  all  equiva- 
lent expressions.  Why  did  the  apostle  speak  so  infre- 
quently of  forgiveness  —  the  term  which  the  primitive 
preachers  so  constantly  used  to  denote  the  inception  of 
salvation  ?  I  think  that  the  term  "  justification  "  was  better 
adapted  to  express  the  idea  of  a  state  of  grace  in  which 
the  believer  stands  (Rom.  v.  2),  it  served  to  emphasize 
the  secure  position  of  acceptance  with  God  occupied  by 
him,  notwithstanding  the  sin  which  still  cleaves  to  him. 
It  stood  for  the  completeness  and  the  permanence  of  sal- 
vation. It  is  the  verdict  of  God,  which  none  can  annul 
or  gainsay. 

These  thoughts  were  also  rooted  in  Paul's  experience. 
He  had  tried  the  Pharisaic  way  of  salvation  and  had 
proved  its  insufficiency.  He  had  once  been  ignorant  of 
the  righteousness  which  God  graciously  gives  (j]  rov  Oeov 
hiKaioavvT))^  and  had  sought  to  establish  his  own  Qq  ihia 
SiKaLoavvi],  Rom.  x.  3  ;  c/jlt)  hiKaioorvvrj  rj  etc  vo/ulov,  Phil, 
iii.  9),  naniely,  a  righteousness  achieved  by  legal  works, 
and  had  failed.  The  coveted  acceptance  with  God  he 
had  at  last  secured  through  faith  in  Christ.  In  this 
personal  experience  his  polemic  against   Pharisaism  was 

justification"  (Rom.  iv.  25),  Le  Peche,  p.  251  sq.  This  is  ingenious, 
but  I  cannot  accept  it  as  reproducing  the  form  of  Paul's  thought.  In 
Rom.  vi.  7  Paul  is  not  speaking  of  Christ's  death,  hut  of  the  believer's 
ethical  death  to  sin.  It  is  quite  unwarranted  to  apply  the  passage  to 
Christ's  death  as  a  satisfaction  to  the  law  and  to  deduce  from  it  the  idea 
of  a  justification  of  Christ  by  the  resurrection.  IMoreover,  the  phrase 
dedLKaiuiraL  dirb  rijs  ap.apTias  would  be  very  strange  in  application  to 
Christ.  Christ's  death  in  its  substitutionary  aspect  and  the  believer's 
death  to  sin  (moral  renewal)  are  very  different  categories  and  cannot  be 
treated  as  one.  From  this  identification  several  unwarranted  inferences 
are  drawn  and  a  confusion  of  ideas  (see  p.  259)  needlessly  attributed  to 
the  apostle.  Rom.  iv.  25  more  naturally  means  that  Christ's  death  is  the 
ground  of  salvation  (Heilsbegrundung),  and  that  his  resurrection  is  the 
ground  of  faith  (^Glauhenshegr'dndung) . 


JUSTIFICATION  419 

grounded.  He  knew  that  salvation  was  not  by  works 
from  liis  own  pre-Christian  struggle  after  a  sense  of  peace 
with  God  and  with  his  own  conscience.  He  knew  that  it 
was  by  faith  in  Christ  from  the  experience  which  had 
transformed  him  from  an  enemy  into  a  disciple  of  Christ 
and  had  begotten  in  him  the  certainty  of  salvation.  The 
sense  of  sin,  whose  power  he  realized  more  and  more  as 
he  contemplated  the  holy  requirements  of  God,  also  con- 
tributed to  this  conviction.  How  could  man  ever  achieve 
or  deserve  salvation  in  the  face  of  such  a  hindering  power  ? 
From  this  point  of  view  the  apostle  felt  certain  that  if 
man  was  to  be  saved  from  sin  it  must  be  by  a  gratuitous 
act  of  God.  He  can  present  to  God  no  adequate  right- 
eousness of  his  own.  He  must  renounce  dependence  upon 
his  own  merits.  Salvation  cannot  be  received  on  the  basis 
of  debt,  but  only  on  the  basis  of  grace.  The  idea  of  sal- 
vation by  meritorious  deeds  would  imply  that  God  bestows 
forgiveness  as  something  due  (^Kara  6(peL\7jfjLa,  Rom.  iv.  4). 
The  watchwords  of  the  Pharisaic  doctrine  are  "  works  " 
and  "debt";  those  of  Paul's  system  are  "faith"  and 
"grace."  The  motive  of  salvation  is  God's  mercy  to  the 
undeserving  ;  faith  is  tlia..a±jjlt.ude,  on  man's  part,  which 
corresponds  to  grace  ;  it  is  the  disposition  to  accept  God's 
gracious  gift.  Salvation  is  possible  because  God  treats 
men  better  than  they  deserve. 

We  have  now  to  consider  more  particularly  the  meaning 
of  the  terms  "justification"  and  "faith,"  and  to  study  their 
mutual  relation  to  Paul's  doctrine.  As  has  been  observed, 
justify  is  a  legal  term.  In  the  Old  Testament  its  prevalent 
significance  is  forensic.  It  belongs  to  a  type  of  religious 
thought  which  is  accustomed  to  represent  God  as  a  sov- 
ereign or  judge,  and  his  acts  in  relation  to  men  under  the 
analogy  of  decrees  or  verdicts.  Paul  was  familiar  by  his 
training  with  these  Jewish  forms  of  thought  concerning 
God,  and  he  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  abandon  them  in 
his  Christian  teaching.  In  fact,  the  use  of  them  put  him 
at  a  great  advantage  with  his  Judaizing  opponents.  In 
important  respects  he  and  they  occupied  common  ground; 
they  had,  to  some  extent,  common  conceptions  and  a  com- 


420  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

mon  vocabulary.  Paul  meets  his  opponents  on  their  own 
plane  and  discusses  with  them  the  question:  On  what  con- 
ditions does  God  pronounce  his  verdict  of  acceptance  ?  I 
do  not  mean  to  intimate  that  Paul  retained  this  form  of 
thought  and  expression  merely  by  way  of  accommodation; 
it  was  his  own  thought-form  also,  but  it  was  not  his  only 
one  and  is  in  no  sense  the  measure  of  his  doctrine  of 
salvation. 

Paul  uses  "  righteousness  "  in  two  senses.  Sometimes  it 
is  a  quality  or  attribute,  as  in  Rom.  iii.  5,  where  he  asks 
the  rhetorical  question;  "But  if  our  unrighteousness  com- 
mendeth  the  righteousness  of  God,  what  shall  we  say  ?  " 
Likewise  in  Rom.  iii.  25,  26  the  righteousness  of  God 
which  is  exhibited  by  the  death  of  Christ  is  that  quality 
of  God's  nature  which  stands  opposed  to  the  lenient  treat- 
ment of  sin.  It  is  the  quality  which  expresses  itself  in 
the  op^rj  Oeov.  But  more  commonly  in  Paul  —  especially 
in  his  discussion  of  the  appropriation  of  salvation — the 

\  righteousness  of  God  (hiicaioavvr]  Oeoii)  means  .a .  state  .  oLsc 
acceptance  with  God  into  which  one  enters  by  faith.  It 
is  objectively  conceived  as  a  gift  or  bestowment  from  God. 
It  is  so  used  in  Rom.  i.  17,  where  we  are  told  that  in  the 
gospel  is  revealed  a  righteousness  from  God  by  faith.  This 
is  God's  free  gift  of  righteousness  (hcopea  rrj^  BtKaLoavv7]<;, 
Rom.  V.  17).  In  Rom.  iii.  21,  22  a  righteousness  of  God 
is  said  to  have  been  manifested  and  made  available  through 
Christ.  In  the  epistle  up  to  this  point  the  apostle  has  been 
describing  the  sinfulness  of  mankind  and  the  wrath  of  God 
which  is  revealed  against  their  wickedness.     Here  he  turns 

^  to  a  gi'aei<>U8  giffe-ol  God_of  which  man,  on  condition  of 
faith,  may  be  the  recipient,  whereas,  otherwise,  he  would 
have  been  the  object  of  the  divine  wrath.  In  Pliil.  iii.  9 
the  righteousness  which  is  available  through  faith  is  called 
rj  eic  Oeov  hiKaioGvvr]  and  is  contrasted  with  man's  own 
righteousness  (e/^>)  hiicaioo-vvri) ^  as  in  Rom.  x.  3  BcKaioavvr} 
Oeov  is  contrasted  with  Ihia  BiKaioavvri.  The  righteousness 
of  works,  were  it  possible,  would  be  a  righteousness  which 
would  proceed  from  man's  own  doings  and  strivings,  but 
the  righteousness  of  faith  proceeds,  on  the  contrary,  from 


JUSTIFICATION  421 

God  as  a  gift  of  grace.  The  genitive  Oeov  must  therefore 
be  taken  as  denoting  the  sourc§,,,^g»r  author.  These  two  /^ 
conditions  of  God's  righteousness  —  as  a  quality  and  as  a 
^ift  of  God  —  are  essentially  related.  The  righteousness 
which  God  confers  is  grounded  in  the  ethical  righteous- 
ness which  is  an  attribute  of  his  character.  The  state  of 
acceptance  Avhich  is  opened  to  the  believer  is  a  state  of 
harmony  and  fellowship  with  God.  The  conditions  of  being 
accounted  righteous  are  such  as  accord  witli  God's  perfect 
character. 

The  terms  "  justify  "  (St/catow)  and  "  justification  "  (St- 
KaicocTL^)  must  be  understood  in  accord  with  this  objective 
sense  of  righteousness.  They  are  terms  derived  from  legal 
analogy.  To  justify  means  to  declare  righteous,  to  acquit,  ^ 
to  pronounce  a  sentence  of  acceptance.  They  illustrate 
the  fact  that  religious  language  must  be  largely  analogical. 
This  is  true  of  such  terms  as  "moral  governor,"  "redemp- 
tion," and  "judgment."  Religious  truth  must  often  be 
conveyed  in  terms  which  reflect  human  relations.  In 
such  cases  we  never  think  of  regarding  the  forms  of  ex- 
pression as  scientific  definitions.  Nor  do  we,  on  the  other 
hand,  repudiate  such  analogical  expressions  as  false  and 
misleading  so  long  as  they  convey  the  particular  truth 
which  we  wish  to  teach.  Such  terms  are  more  concrete 
and  realistic  than  the  more  abstract  language  which  we 
should  employ  in  efforts  at  precise  definition.  The  foren- 
sic concept  of  justification  was  a  favorite  analogy  with 
Paul,  and  was  admirably  adapted  to  convey  the  idea  of  a 
purely  gracious  salvation  freely  offered  and  fully  pos- 
sessed in  spite  of  sin,  as  well  as  to  place  the  apostle  en 
rapport  with  the  forms  of  argument  which  it  was  most 
necessary  for  him  to  combat. 

That  which  completely  saved  Paul's  doctrine  of  justi-      / 
fication  from  formalism  and  externality,  such  as  belonged 
to  the  Pharisaic  theology,  was  his  conception  of  the  be-      ,■ 
liever's  relation  to  Christ.     We  might  suppose,  from  Paul's      j 
doctrine  of  substitution,  that  faith  would  be  presented  as 
a  passive  acquiescence  in  a  vicarious  righteousness.     In 
fact  it  is  not  so.     If  Paul  lays  stress  upon  the  idea  of 


422  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

Christ /or  us,  he  lays  even  a  greater  emphasis  upon  the  idea 
of  Christ  in  us.  Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation  is  sure  to  be 
misconceived  unless  his  conception  of  faith  is  clearly  and 
correctly  apprehended.  With  Paul  faith  is  a  very  rich 
conception.  It  is  a  trust  or  repose  of  soul  in  God  or 
in  Christ  —  an  attitude  at  once  of  receptivity  and  of  sym- 
pathy towards  the  divine.  It  is  an  affair  of  the  heart  and 
is  closely  kindred  to  love.  It  is  "  with  the  heart  that  man 
believeth  unto  righteousness"  (Rom.  x.  10).  Through 
(hicL)  faith  Christ  dwells  in  the  heart  (Eph.  iii.  17). 
Faith  worketh  by  love  (Gal.  v.  6) ;  that  is,  it  is  an  active 
and  energetic  principle  as  well  as  a  receptive  attitude. 
Faith  is  therefore  a  powerful  motive  to  obedience  and  to 
every  good  work.  Paul  speaks  of  "  the  work  of  faith  " 
(to  epyov  r?)?  TTLcrreco^')  alongside  of  "the  labor  of  love" 
and  "  patient  continuance  in  hope "  (1  Thess.  i.  3 ;  cf.  2 
Thess.  i.  11).  Faith  stands  in  no  contradiction  with  action, 
or  v/ith  works  in  the  sense  of  the  deeds  and  services  required 
by  the  gospel.  It  is  opposed  to  works  only  in  the  sense  of 
deeds  of  legal  obedience  contemplated  as  the  meritorious 
ground  of  salvation.  "  What  is  not  of  faith  is  sin  "  (Rom. 
xiv.  23),  says  the  apostle.  Faith  must  therefore  be  the 
inseparable  accompaniment  of  all  good  choices  and  actions. 
It  involves  the  will.  It  includes  the  choice  and  pursuit  of 
the  truth  (2  Thess.  ii.  12).  It  implies  subjection  to  the 
righteousness  of  God  (Rom.  x.  3).  It  is,  in  short,  that 
attitude  and  disposition  on  man's  part  which  correspond 
to  God's  love  and  grace.  In  faith  man  enters  into  fellow- 
ship and  sympathy  with  God.  It  is  not  a  mere  passive 
receptivity  ;  it  does  not  simply  receive  ;  it  uses  what  God 
bestows. 

Such  is  Paul's  general  idea  of  faith.  But  he  connects 
it  more  closely  with  Christ  who  is  the  specific  object  of 
the  Christian's  faith.  One  of  his  characteristic  phrases  is, 
''  to  believe  on  Christ  "  (TTiaTevetv  eh  HpicrTov,  or  iv  'Kpto-ro), 
or  TTtcTTt?  'lijaov  ^piaTov,  Gal.  ii.  6  ;  Eph.  i.  13 ;  Rom.  iii. 
22).  And  this  faith  is  a  personal  relation  of  fellowship 
and  love.  To  live  by  faith  on  the  Son  of  God  is  synony- 
mous with  living  in  Christ  and  with  Christ's  living  in  the 


JUSTIFICATION  423 

believer  (Gal.  ii.  20).  To  be  in  the  faitli  is  equivalent  to 
having  Christ  dwell  in  the  heart  (2  Cor.  xiii.  5).  Hence 
for  the  apostle  faith  in  Christ  involves  a  reciprocal  in- 
dwelling of  Christ  in  the  believer  and  of  the  believer  in 
Christ.  It  denotes  a  mystic  union,  a  mutual  fellowship.  \ 
His  favorite  phrase  to  describe  the  Christian  life  is  ev 
'Kpcaro)  elvai.  To  be  in  Christ  is  to  be  a  new  creature 
(2  Cor.  V.  17).  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  justification  by 
faith  is  not  Paul's  only  formula  for  the  way  of  salvation. 
Quite  as  characteristic  of  him  is  the  idea  of  entering  into 
life-fellowship  with  Christ.  No  judicial  analogy  could 
fully  convey  his  doctrine  of  the  Christian  life.  He  uses 
the  vital,  quite  as  much  as  the  forensic,  analogies  to 
describe  the  appropriation  of  Christ's  saving  benefits.  He 
has  no  consciousness  of  any  incongruity  between  them. 
Indeed,  he  can  combine  them  in  a  single  conception  and 
write  of  a  "righteousness  in  Christ"  (piicaioo-vvr]  ev  XpLa-rm, 
2  Cor.  V.  21),  and  of  the  "  righteousness  which  is  through 
faith  in  Christ,  that  is,  the  righteousness  which  is  from 
God"  as  synonymous  with  "  being  found  in  Christ "  (Phil, 
iii.  9).  To  be  justified  by  faith  is  to  obtain  God's  gift  of 
righteousness,  to  enter  into  a  state  of  acceptance  with 
God,  through  living  union  with  Christ.  Justification  1 
by  fait^^  means  the  reception  of  Christ  into  the  heart  r 
(Eph.  iii.  17);  the  fprgiveness_of  sin|  means  becoming  / 
a  new  creature  in  Christ  (2  Cor.  v.  1^).  These  terms 
differ  only  formally  —  as  terms  based  on  one  kind  of 
analogy  differ  from  those  based  on  some  other  kind  — 
and  for  the  consciousness  of  the  apostle  they  differ  not 
at  all. 

Another  formula  for  the  way  of  salvation  —  quite  as 
characteristic  of  Paul  as  justification  by  faith  —  is,  dying 
to  sin  and  rising  to  holiness.  The  apostle  seems,  at 
least  in  one  case,  to  have  employed  this  representation 
as  a  means  of  refuting  unwarranted  inferences  from  the 
idea  of  justification.  He  had  taught  in  the  earlier  chap- 
ters of  Romans  that  upon  believing  in  Christ  man  has  a 
verdict  of  acquittal  pronounced  in  his  favor,  and  goes  free 
from  the  condemnation  proclaimed  by  the  law  against  sin. 


424  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

He  is  then  entitled  to  rejoice  in  his  liberty.  Yes,  but, 
says  an  imaginary  objector,  what  about  sin  itself?  Is 
it  still  there  the  same  as  ever  ?  If  God  in  his  grace 
acquits,  may  not  the  believer  safely  go  on  in  sin?  It 
might  seem  as  if  the  verdict  of  justification  was  only 
a  formal  affair;  as  if,  after  all,  the  grace  of  God  con- 
ferred in  its  decree  did  not  really  destroy,  but  rather 
encouraged,  the  sin  itself.  The  objection  was  of  Paul's 
own  making.  He  saw  that  a  particular  terminology  was 
liable  to  leave  some  side  of  the  truth  unguarded ;  that  his 
discussion  of  justification,  up  to  that  point,  had  not  fully 
safeguarded  all  the  elements  of  his  belief.  He  replies 
(Rom.  vi.  2  sq.^  that  the  objection  cannot  hold  against 
his  real  doctrine.  To  be' accepted  with  God  involves  a 
new  life ;  it  means  a  new  heart  as  well  as  a  new  standing. 
The  Christian  dies  to  sin,  that  is,  breaks  off  all  relation 
to  the  old  sinful  life  as  one  breaks  relation  with  earth 
when  he  dies.  This  dying  to  sin  Paul  identifies  with 
baptism  because  that  rite  symbolized  for  his  mind  union 
with  Christ,  and  because  the  idea  of  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  naturally  suggested  an  analogy  with  immersion 
into  and  emergence  from  the  waters  of  baptism.  As  Christ 
when  he  died  ceased  to  hold  those  relations  to  the  sinful 
world  which  he  sustained  before,  so  we  must  die  to  the 
sinful  world  and  rise  to  a  holy  life.  The  justified  man 
must  be  a  holy  man ;  there  is  no  separation  possible  be- 
tween justification  and  moral  renewal.  So  completely  are 
they  one  for  the  apostle's  mind  that  he  can  blend  the  lan- 
guage of  the  two  representatives  (as  in  the  case  mentioned 
above)  and  write  :  "  He  that  liath  died  is  justified  from 
sin"  (Rom.  vi.  7).  In  my  judgment,  the  context  makes 
it  certain  that  by  6  ctTroOdvcov  here  is  meant :  he  who  has 
died  to  siii,  he  who  has  ceased  from  the  old  sinful  life. 
Justification  from  the  verdict  of  the  law  is,  at  the  same 
time  and  equally,  justification  from  sin.  The  verdict  of 
acquittal  is  also  the  effective  realization  of  an  actual 
deliverance  from  sin  itself.  The  cancellation  of  guilt 
takes  place  only  on  terms  that  involve,  at  the  same  time, 
the  breaking  of  the  power  of  sin.     This,  then,  is  Paul's 


JUSTIFICATION  425 

answer  to  the  possible  objection  to  his  doctrine  of  gracious 
justification.  It  endangers  no  ethical  interest.  It  per- 
mits no  toleration  of  sin.  Justification  is  justification 
from  sin  as  Avell  as  acquittal  from  guilt  and  condemna- 
tion. Tliere  is  no  such  thing  as  a  judicial  acquittal 
which   is    not   also   an   effective    moral    deliverance. 

This  representation  of  dying  and  rising  witli   Christ         \ 
is  also  figurative  or  analogical.     But  it   is    adapted   to 
convey  an  aspect  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation  which  the 
forensic  term  "justification"  does  not  convey.      Justify  \ 
was  a  term   derived  from    Paul's    Jewish  and    Rabbinic   I 
training.     The  phrases,  to  be   in   Christ  and  to  die  and    Y\^ 
rise  with  Christ,  were  a  part  of  hisi  Christian  vocabulary.^    ' 
He  retained  the  juridical  term,  we  may  believe,  because  it  "■  X 
answered  to  an  aspect  of  his  own  experience,  and  because 
it  was  especially  serviceable  in  his  polemic  against  Judaiz- 
ing  teaching.     But  it  is  evident  that  in  his  constructive 
thought  upon  the  method  of   salvation  he  preferred  his 
Christian  terminology.     It  was  based  upon  his  conscious 
ne^jof  union  witli„ Christ.     Justification  emphasized  well 
the  completeness  and  the  graciousness  of  God's  forgive- 
ness ;    it  accentuated  the  precious  truth  of  God's  favor 
and  lifted  the  sense  of  condemnation;   but  dwelling  in 
Christ  and  rising  with  him  into  the  heights  of  his  own 
holiness,  expressed  the  inner  nature  of  the  Christian  life 
and  correlated  it  with  Christ  as  the  living  power  who 
rules  in  the  Christian  man.     When  the  apostle  was  not 
refuting  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  meritorious  works, 
but  wished  to  show  that  to  receive  God's  gift  of  grace  in 
Christ  means  to  enter  on  a  holy  life,  he  instinctively  pre- 
ferred the  phrases  denoting  mystic  communion.    He  makes 
effective  use  of  the  figure  of  dying  and  rising  with  Christ  in  2 
Cor.  V.  14  sg.,  where  he  is  urging  upon  his  readers  the  claims 
of  the  new  life  of  holiness  and  love.     He  died,  exclaims 
the  apostle,  that  we  might  live  holy  and  unselfish  lives. 
Now  all  died  with  him ;  that  is,  the  purpose  of  his  death  is 
realized  when  men  die  to  sin  and  live  to  holiness.     Virtu- 
ally, all  died  (to  sin)  when  he  died  ;  actually,  all  Chris- 
tians thus  die  to  sin.     Let  us  then  see  to  it  that  we  live  as 


426  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

new  creatures  in  Christ.  Here  Paul  employs  both  his 
characteristic  mystical  terms  —  dying  with  Christ  and  liv- 
ing in  Christ  (vv.  15,  17).  In  Gal.  ii.  19,  20  and  in  Col. 
ii.  20  and  iii.  3  he  employs  the  figure  of  dying  with  Christ 
—  in  all  cases  to  emphasize  the  idea  that  the  Christian  life 
is  a  holy  life.  This  death  means  the  cessation  of  the  sin- 
ful life  and  the  living  of  a  new  life  in  Christ.  We  have 
observed  elsewhere  that  the  basis  of  this  figure  was,  no 
doubt,  the  conviction  that  salvation  was  established  through 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Here  the  appropri- 
ation of  salvation  is  so  far  identified  with  its  ground  as  to 
be  described  in  terms  of  Christ's  saving  deeds.  Thus  the 
phrases,  to  die  and  to  rise  with  Christ,  epitomize  both 
Paul's  doctrine  of  the  founding  and  his  doctrine  of  the 
realization  of  salvation,  and  suggest  the  genetic  connec- 
tion between  them.  In  Gal.  ii.  19,  20  and  Phil.  iii.  9,  10 
we  see  the  equivalence  of  the  ideas,  dying  with  Christ  and 
being  in  Christ. 

What,  now,  is  the  relation  of  faith  to  righteousness  ? 
We  have  seen  that,  to  Paul's  mind,  righteousness  is  a  state 
of  acceptance  with  God,  but  that  such  a  relation  involving 
the  divine  approval  is  inseparable  from  the  right  moral 
attitude  of  the  soul  towards  God.  Such  an  attitude  is 
faith.  Faith  introduces  to  right  standing  before  God  be- 
cause faith  is  the  receptive  and  obedient  attitude  of  the 
soul  towards  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ.  Righteousness 
is  God's  approval  and  acquittal  from  guilt,  but  it  is  equally 
a  right  moral  disposition  towards  him  and  his  holy  require- 
ments. It  is  both  of  these,  and  equally.  Thus  righteous- 
ness may  be  defined  as  in  its  essence  Godlikeness.  Now 
faith  is  life-union  with  Christ,  and  such  union  insures 
increasing  Godlikeness.  Is  faith,  then,  synonymous  with 
righteousness  ?  If  by  righteousness  is  meant  the  actual 
and  full  realization  of  our  moral  ideal,  faith  certainly  is 
not  righteousness.  Faith  is  the  opening  of  the  life  to 
God's  mercy,  it  means  facing  the  right  way;  it  is  the 
condition  on  man's  part  of  realizing  the  status  and  char- 
acter of  righteousness.  It  does  not  procure  righteousness 
as  a  reward  of  merit,  for  faith  is  self-surrender  and  the 


JUSTIFICATION  427 

renunciation  of  merit.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  faith  is 
without  moral  value.  It  has  all  the  moral  value  of  a  right, 
instead  of  a  wrong,  attitude  towards  God.  As  such  it 
does  not  procure  salvation  as  a  compensation,  but  it  does 
morally  condition  its  bestowment.  It  is  inconceivable 
that  the  gifts  of  God's  grace  could  be  bestowed  on  any 
other  terms.  What  Paul  is  concerned  to  prove  is,  that 
God's  favor  and  forgiveness  are  not  given  as  a  reward  for 
some  meritorious  act  of  man;  they  are  purely  gracious. 
But  it  is  not  warranted,  on  this  account,  to  deny  the  moral 
excellence  of  faith  in  the  interest  of  maintaining  that  it  is 
not  regarded  as  a  work  of  merit. 

No  just  exegesis  will  try  to  separate  the  subjective  and 
the  objective  factors  in  Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation.  Too 
long  have  they  been  arrayed  against  each  other.  We 
observe  that  several  recent  writers  on  the  subject  have  not 
escaped  the  onesidedness  which  denies  or  disparages  one 
of  them  in  the  supposed  interest  of  the  other.  Such  a 
procedure  is  based,  not  upon  a  just  estimate  of  Paul's 
teaching  as  a  whole,  but  upon  an  unwarranted  emphasis 
upon  some  passages  to  the  neglect  of  others.  If  dogmatic 
bias  has  long  favored  a  onesided  forensic  interpretation, 
an  equally  strong  preconception  is  observed  in  many  expo- 
sitions of  the  ethical  theory.  But  why  should  there  be 
any  contradiction  between  a  juridical  and  an  ethical  form 
of  expression  ?  All  writers  on  religion,  whose  thought  is 
marked  by  any  richness  or  vivacity,  employ  a  variety  of  fig- 
ures and  analogies  to  convey  their  ideas.  We  have  seen 
that  Paul  has  at  least  three  favorite  forms  of  expression 
for  his  idea  of  salvation.  His  language  was  not  subject 
to  that  leaden  uniformity  which  many  of  his  interpreters 
would  impute  to  him.  But  the  essence  of  his  doctrine  is 
the  same  in  all  these  forms  of  teaching.  I  have  elsewhere 
called  the  forensic  representation  of  his  doctrine  the  form 
or  formal  principle  of  his  teaching,  the  ethical  and  mystical 
expressions  of  it  the  essence  or  material  principle  of  it.^ 
But  the  use  of  such  an  analogy  exposes  one's  meaning  to 
misapprehension  and  easily  gives  rise  to  unwarranted  in- 

1  The  Pauline  Theology^  p.  275  sq. 


428  THE   THEOLOGY   OF  PAUL 

ferences.^  It  would,  perhaps,  be  less  liable  to  misappre- 
hension to  say  that,  like  every  vital  thinker,  Paul  uses 
analogies.  One  is  drawn  from  legal  relations  ;  another 
from  the  phenomena  of  life  and  deatli.  The  analogies  are 
not  to  be  taken  as  formally  precise.  They  express  a  great 
moral  and  spiritual  fact.  They  stand  for  great  realities. 
But  the  realities  are  ethical  and  spiritual.  The  analogies 
in  question  are  good  and  true  so  far  as  they  go,  but,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  they  cannot  be  accurate  and  perfect 
expressions  of  spiritual  relations  and  processes.  Each  of 
Paul's  forms  of  expression  for  his  doctrine  should  be  read 
in  the  light  of  the  others,  and  all  should  be  understood  in 
accord  with  the  characteristics  of  his  mind  and  the  method 
of  his  teaching  as  a  whole. 

I  accordingly  hold  that  Paul's  teaching  regarding  the 
way  of  salvation  is  not  two,  but  one.  I  cannot,  therefore, 
entirely  agree  with  Dr.  Bruce,  who  thinks  that  Paul's 
juristic  doctrine  was  developed  first,  in  point  of  time,  and 
that  his  "  doctrine  of  subjective  righteousness,  its  causes 
and  hindrances,  was  of  later  growth  than  his  doctrine  of 
objective  righteousness. "^  This  view  describes  the  objec- 
tive and  the  subjective  in  Paul  as  "  two  revelations  "  which 
did  not,  however,  cancel  each  other,  but  '4ived  together 
peaceably  in  Paul's  mind."  Elsewhere  Dr.  Bruce  reminds 
us  that  "  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  does  not 
refer  to  the  subjective  aspect  of  faith  as  a  renewing  power 
till  he  has  finished  his  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 

1  Professor  Bruce,  one  of  the  fairest  of  critics,  infers  from  ray  use  of  tliis 
analogy  that  I  suppose  Paul  to  have  regarded  objective  righteousness  as  a 
mere  form  and  not  as  "  a  great  essential  reality,"  and  that  I  consider  the 
doctrine  of  juridical  justification  to  have  been  for  the  apostle  "  a  mere 
controversial  weapon,"  These  inferences  seem  to  me  quite  unv^arranted 
by  my  discussion,  and  are  certainly  contrary  to  my  opinion.  Perhaps  they 
may  serve  to  illustrate  the  risks  of  misappreliension  which  are  involved  in 
the  use  of  analogical  language  —  a  point  of  importance  for  our  present 
investigation.  I  observe,  however,  that  Professor  Bruce  himself  makes  use 
of  the  same  distinction  in  his  exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  : 
"  We  must  distinguish,"  he  says,  "  between  the  form  and  the  substance  of 
the  writer's  thought,  between  his  essential  idea  and  the  mode  in  which  he 
states  it  in  an  argument  constructed  for  the  benefit  of  others."  The 
Expositor,  1888.     (Third  series.) 

2  St.  PauVs  Conception  of  Christianity,  pp.  214,  215. 


JUSTIFICATION  429 

cation."  ^  There  is,  of  course,  no  question  that  the  apostle 
views  the  way  of  salvation  mainly  m  a  forensic  manner  in 
Rom.  i.-v.,  and  that  he  develops  the  ethical  aspects  of  his 
doctrine  in  chapters  vi.-viii.  But  this  fact  in  no  way 
favors  the  idea  that  for  Paul  the  objective  and  the  subjec- 
tive Vv^ere  "two  revelations,"  or  separate  forms  of  doctrine, 
one  of  which  followed  the  other  chronologically.  The 
ideas  which  Paul  expresses  in  Rom.  vi.-viii.,  were  certainly 
in  his  mind  when  he  began  to  write.  The  manner  in  which 
his  thoughts  are  unfolded  was  determined  by  the  purpose 
of  his  argument.  In  the  early  chapters  he  is  concerned  to 
prove  the  true  method  of  justification,  as  against  the  false 
method.  His  point  is  :  All  men  being  sinful,  we  must 
hold  that  God  accepts  them,  not  on  the  basis  of  their  good 
deeds,  but  on  condition  of  a  self-surrender.  It  is  only 
after  this  point  is  fully  established  that  the  apostle  has 
occasion  to  develop  his  thouglit  of  the  inner  nature  of 
the  Christian  life.  Quite  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of 
two  doctrines,  chronologically  separate,  is  the  fact  that  in 
Galatians  (written  before  Romans),  as  well  as  elsewhere 
(e.g.  Phil.  iii.  9-11),  the  different  forms  of  expression  are 
used  interchangeably. 

I  therefore  hold  that,  in  justice  to  Paul's  thought,  we 
should  refuse,  on  the  one  hand,  to  minimize  the  juridical 
form  of  his  doctrine  in  the  supposed  interest  of  an  ethical 
idea  of  justification,  and,  on  the  other,  should  decline  to 
rest  in  the  forensic  analogies  alone  as  if  they  were  precise, 
scientific  definitions  of  tlie  spiritual  realities.  We  should 
rather  hold  that  for  Paul  the  juridical  and  the  ethical  coin- 
cide. His  doctrine  does  not  in  the  least  fall  short  in  point 
of  ethical  reality.  In  wdiatever  various  terms  it  is  pre- 
sented, it  is  ethical  to  the  core.  Modern  religious  thought 
lays  great  stress  upon  the  importance  of  reading  all  Chris- 
tian doctrines  in  ethical  terms,  and  rightly;  but  this  requires 
no  break  with  Paul.  His  conception  of  salvation  ig  ethical 
through  and  through,  because  it  is  intensely  real  and  per- 
sonal. Faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness  because  it  sets 
a  man  in  the  way  of  righteousness  ;  it  is  the  soul's  entrance 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  169. 


430  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

upon  right  relations  to  God  as  revealed  in  Christ.^  AJ^al 
analogy  is  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  ethical  and  spiritual 
reality  when,  as  in  this  case,  the  lawgiver  is  the  God  of  all 
grace,  the  law  itself  holy  love,  and  the  condition  of  acquit- 
tal before  God  union  with  Christ. 

1  That  the  old  theological  formula,  "the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness to  the  believer,"  does  not  correctly  render  Paul's  thought  of 
justification  is  now  so  generally  recognized  by  exegetes  that  I  have  not 
thought  it  necessary  to  refer  to  it  in  the  text.  See  my  Pauline  Theology^ 
p.  263. 


>» 


f 


V 


^  f 


J7 


/ 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE   HOLY   SPIRIT 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  Spirit  is  hardly  more  than  a 
name  for  the  power  or  presence  of  God.  His  Spirit  broods 
over  creation,  educing  order  out  of  chaos  (Gen.  i.  2).  He 
sends  forth  his  Spirit,  and  men  are  created  (Ps.  civ.  30). 
By  his  Spirit  God  bestows  strength  upon  heroes  (Judg. 
xiv.  6),  skill  upon  artificers  (Ex.  xxxi.  3,  4),  inspiration 
upon  poets  (2  Sam.  xxxii.  2),  and  the  knowledge  of  his 
will  upon  prophets  (1  Sam.  x.  10,  etc.).  The  Spirit  is 
mainly  correlated  with  extraordinary  gifts  and  endow- 
ments, although  its  relation  to  the  ethical  and  religious 
life  is  not  unrecognized  (Ps.  li.  11;  Is.  Ixiii.  10).  In  the 
later  Jewish  period  the  Spirit  was  more  distinctly  corre- 
lated with  the  life  of  man.  It  was  not,  however,  in  his 
moral  and  spiritual  life  that  the  Spirit  was  supposed  to  be 
operative  so  much  as  in  unusual  states  and  experiences, 
such  as  prophecy,  ecstasies,  and  visions.  God  was  in  the 
thunder  and  the  whirlwind  of  man's  life  rather  than  in 
the  stillness  of  his  daily  growth  and  common  experience. 
The  extraordinary  and  the  marvellous  were  the  marks  of 
the  Spirit's  presence  and  power.  The  Spirit  is  regarded 
as  an  adequate  cause  for  phenomena  which  are  deemed 
supernatural  and  inexplicable.  Not  practical  religious 
value,  relation  to  holiness  in  thought  and  life,  but  the 
mysterious  and  miraculous  is  the  test  and  proof  of  the 
Spirit's  operation.  Hence  the  prophet  with  the  ecstatic 
inspiration  which  was  commonly  attributed  to  him  was 
the  typical  example  of  a  Spirit-filled  man.^      Such  were 

1  The  popular  Jewish  ideas  of  the  workings  of  the  Spirit  of  God  are 
very  fully  illustrated  and  discussed  by  Gunkel  in  Part  I.  of  his  very 
instructive  work,   Die   Wirkuwjen  des  heiligen  Geistes  nach  der  popu- 

431 


432  THE  THEOLOGY   OF  PAUL 

some  of  the  current  ideas  concerning  the  working  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  time  of  Paul.  It  is  interesting  to  observe 
how  far  he  accorded  with  them  and  how  he  modified 
them.i 

In  the  New  Testament  we  meet  with  clear  traces  of  this 
popular  view  of  the  Spirit's  activity.  In  the  early  chapters 
of  Acts  the  work  of  the  Spirit  is  mainly  seen  in  the  miracu- 
lous and  the  marvellous.  The  speaking  with  tongues  at 
Pentecost  (contemplated  in  Acts  ii.  as  a  miraculous  endow- 
ment with  the  ability  to  speak  foreign  languages)  is  re- 
garded as  a  signal  exhibition  of  the  Spirit's  power  (^vv.  4, 
17).  (Jjere  it  is  the  marvellous  which  is  magnified  and 
regarded  as  the  supreme  proof  of  the  Spirit's  operation-. 
The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  catches  away  Philip  and  transports 
him  from  the  place  where  he  baptized  the  eunuch  to  Azotus 
(Acts  viii.  39,  40).  The  miracles  of  the  apostles  are 
especially  regarded  as  works  of  the  Spirit.  It  was  the 
"  signs "  which  Philip  did  which  excited  the  desire  of 
Simon  Magus  to  possess,  for  his  own  use,  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  (Acts  viii.  18)^  For  the  Christians,  indeed, 
the  possession  of  the  Spirit  involved  that  the  heart  should 
be  "  right  before  God  "  (y.  21),  but  it  was  the  Spirit  of 
power^  rather  than  that  of  holiness  upon  which  primary 
stress  was  laid.^  The  same  association  of  the  Spirit  with 
the  unusual  in  the  religious  life  is  reflected  in  the  circum- 

laren  Anschauwig  der  apostolischen  Zeit  und  nach  des  Lehre  des  Apostels 
Faulus. 

1  Respecting  the  origin  and  motive  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  wide 
differences  of  opinion  exist.  Sanday  says :  "  The  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  or  the  Holy  Spirit  is  taken  over  (by  Paul)  from  the  0.  T."  Comm.  on 
Bomans,  p.  199.  With  this  view  agree,  substantially,  Wendt,  Fleisch  u. 
Geist,  p.  152  sq.  and  Gloel,  Der  Heilige  Geist,  p.  238  sq.  Gunkel,  on  the 
contrary,  op.  cit.,  pp.  83-90  thinks  that  Paul's  doctrine  has  very  little 
connection  with  the  0.  T.,  and  explains  it  from  his  experience  and  his 
originality.  Pfleiderer,  PauUnismus,  p.  206  sq.  ;  Cone,  The  Gospel  and 
its  Earliest  Inteipretations,  p.  167  ;  and  Holtzmann,  ISfeutest.  Theol.  II. 
145,  think  it  stands  connected  with  Hellenistic  thought,  especially  with 
the  Book  of  Wisdom.  Per  contra,  see  Gunkel,  pp.  86,  87.  I  hold  that 
the  historic  root  of  Paul's  doctrine  is  in  the  O.  T.,  but  that  Gunkel  cor- 
rectly emphasizes  the  great  importance  of  his  personal  experience  and 
originality  in  determining  its  development. 

2  Cf.  Bruce,  St.  PauVs  Conception  of  Christianity^  p.  245. 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  433 

stance  that  tlie  Spirit  was  regarded  as  a  special  gift  which 
did  not  always  accompany  baptism  and  faith.  The  Sa- 
maritans are  not  regarded  as  having  "  received  tlie  Holy 
Ghost  "  when  they  "received  the  word  of  God."  They 
had  believed  and  had  been  baptized,  but  it  was  only  when 
Peter  and  John  went  down  and  prayed  for  them  and 
laid  their  hands  on  them  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  was 
bestowed  (Acts  viii.  14-17).  Evidently  some  special  en- 
dowment or  experience  is  here  in  view.  The  same  con- 
ception emerges  even  more  clearly  in  the  narrative  con- 
cerning the  disciples  of  John  whom  Paul  found  at  Ephesus 
(Acts  xix.  1-7).  Not  only  did  they  not  "receive  the 
Holy  Ghost"  when  they  believed,  but  after  they  had 
been  baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ,  it  was  only 
when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  on  them  "that  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  upon  them,  and  they  spake  with  tongues  and 
prophesied"  (y.  6).  Here  it  is  obvious  that  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit  is  regarded  as  synonymous  with  the  ecstatic 
charismata  of  speaking  with  tongues  and  prophesying. 
Such  circumstances  can  only  be  rightly  understood  and 
estimated  in  the  light  of  the  popular  conceptions  of  the 
Spirit's  agency. 

TWhat  attitude  did  Paul  assume  towards  this  idea  of  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  ?  We  shall  find,  I  think,  that  he  shares 
it  in  part,  but  that  he  has  modified  it  in  important  respects 
and  has  given  to  it  quite  jLJiej^.Jorm  and  propiortion. 
What  he  says  that  bears  upon  our  present  inquiry  is  mainly 
found  in  his  discussion  of  the  gifts  of  tongues  and  of 
prophecy  in  ljCOT^,jdi*-xbr^. 

The  apostle  so  far  shares  the  current  views  as  to  think 
of  miracles,  visions,  and  charisms  as  special  products  of  the 
Spirit's  action.  A  mysterious  sacredness  attaches  to  these 
phenomena.  Paul  is  reluctant  to  speak  freely  about  them. 
Only  when  compelled  to  do  so  by  the  aspersions  of  his 
enemies,  does  he  refer  to  his  "visions  and  revelations  of 
the  Lord"  (2  Cor.  xii.  1).  The  words  which  he  heard  in 
the  ecstatic  experience  which  he  proceeds  to  describe  were 
"unspeakable  words  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  man  to 
utter"  (y.  4).  Paul  feels  himself  to  be  a  irvevfiaTLKO'i 
2f 


434  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

(1  Cor.  ii.  15;  Gal.  vi.  1)  —  a  man  endowed  with  unusual 
powers  and  gifts  and,  upon  occasion,  when  he  "must 
needs  glory,"  he  puts  forth  this  claim  boldly  and  rejoices 
in  his  charismatic  endowments  and  experiences.  "  I  thank 
God,"  he  exclaims  to  the  Corinthians,  "  I  speak  with 
tongues  more  than  ye  all"  (1  Cor.  xiv.  18),  and  to  the 
Romans  he  declares  that  he  will  dare  to  speak  only  of 
those  things  which  Christ  wrought  through  him  by  word 
and  deed,  "  in  the  power  of  signs  and  wonders,  in  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost "  (xv.  18'J}t 

From  these  general  indications"of  Paul's  attitude  to- 
wards the  pneumatic  gifts,  as  popularly  conceived,  we 
turn  to  his  fullest  discussion  of  the  subject  in  1  Cor.  xii.- 
xiv.  The  Corinthians  were  an  excitable  folk,  who  readily 
yielded  themselves  to  those  rapt  states  which  were  re- 
garded as  seizures  of  the  Spirit.  Paul  saw  that  their 
fondness  for  ecstatic  excitement  produced  an  unhealthy 
effect  upon  their  religious  life,  and  he  proceeded  to  instruct 
r^\ .  them  upon  the  whole  subject.  His  first  point  is  that  the 
^A  )'W/j^£iinar3r  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  the  recognition  of  the  lord- 
/  ship  of  Christ.  Formerly  they  recognized  idols ;  now  as 
I  spiritual  men  they  must  recognize  Jesus  as  the  only  Lord 
(xii.  1-3) .  He  next  reminds  them  that  the  many  gifts  and 
j  operations  of  the  Spirit  are  one  in  source  and  aim.  The 
various  endowments  must  be  made  to  minister  to  unity. 
Wisdom,  knowledge,  faith,  healing,  miracle,  prophecy, 
glossolalia,  —  "  all  these  worketh  one  and  the  same  Spirit" 
(y.  10),  and  "to  each  one  is  given  the  manifestation  of 
the  Spirit  to  profit  withal"  (Trpo?  to  avficfyepov,  v.  7). 
Unity  and  utility  define  the  aim  of  all  tlie  gifts  and  pre- 
scribe their  legitimate  exercise  (yv.  4-11).  By  these 
principles  the  apostle  sets  strict  limits  to  the  religious 
enthusiasm  which  was  rife  at  Corinth,  and  provides  against 
excesses  to  which  he  saw  the  Corinthian  greed  for  the 
marvellous  and  extravagant  to  be  tending.  The  diversity 
of  gifts  from  the  same  Spirit  furnishes  an  occasion  to  dwell 
upon  the  unity  of  believers.  Thus  the  rule,  that  all  re- 
ligious exercises  are  to  be  used  for  the  practical  benefit  of 
all,  is  further  enforced.     This  splendid  plea  for  Christian 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  435 

unity  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  in  another  connec- 
tion. It  is  only  necessary  now  to  observe  how  Paul  ap- 
plies it  to  the  right  use  of  the  gifts.  Each  person  has  his 
own  place  and  Avork.  Each  has  his  special  endowment. 
Let  him  use  it  for  the  general  good.  Gifts  are  good  in 
proportion  as  they  are  practically  good  for  something. 
Therefore  let  the  most  useful  gifts  be  held  in  highest 
esteem. 

But  how  shall  this  comparative  value  of  the  gifts  be 
determined  ?  It  was  in  answer  to  this  question  that  Paul  i 
wrote  the  most  splendid  passage  to  be  found  in  all  his 
epistles  (1  Cor.  xiii).  The  subject  of  the  charismatic 
gifts  has  in  itself,  for  the  modern  mind,  hardly  more  than 
an  antiquarian  interest.  It  is  well  to  remember  that  it 
was  the  discussion  of  that  subject  which  called  out  the 
passage  which  the  Christian  world  esteems  as  the  gem  of  all 
his  writings.  And  what  is  this  "  way  of  surpassing  excel- 
lence "  (/ca^'  virep/SoXrjv  oBov,  xii.  31),  this  principle  by  which 
the  desire  for  the  best  gifts  is  to  be  regulated,  by  Avhich 
the  usefulness  and  value  of  all  charisms  are  to  be  tested  ? 
It  is  lovCj^ answers  the  apostle;  "Follow  after  love" 
(xiv.  1).  Paul  then  institutes  a  comparison  between  the 
gift  of  tongues  and  the  gift  of  prophecy.  The  former  was 
T^specieTof  Tcstatic  speech  and  was  most  highly  esteemed 
by  the  Corinthians.  Prophecy  was  a  plainer  and  simpler 
expression  of  religious  feeling  in  exhortation  or  instruc- 
tion. For  this  exercise  the  apostle  expresses  a  strong 
preference  on  the  principle:  "All  things  for  edification" 
(iravra  tt/jo?  olKohofxr}V^  xiv.  26).  Paul  does  not  call  in  f 
question  the  reality  of  the  gift  of  tongues.  He  believes 
in  the  gift  and  in  its  use  upon  occasion.  But  it  is  of  little 
or  no  use  in  the  public  assembly.  It  edifies  the  speaker 
himself,  but  not  the  congregation.  No  one  understands  it, 
for  it  is  a  speaking  in  mysteries  (y.  2).  If  it  is  used  at  all, 
the  meaning  of  Avhat  is  said  should  be  interpreted,  either 
by  the  speaker  himself  or  by  some  one  else,  so  that  what 
is  said  may  be  understood  (yv.  5,  13,  28).  Otherwise  the 
exercise  is  profitless  and  may  even  prove  harmful,  since 
unbelievers  who  are  present  would  naturally  interpret  such 


436  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

incomprehensible  fervors  as  madness  (v.  23).  The  apos- 
tle's conclusion  is  that  while  the  glossolalia  is  not  to  be 
wholly  discouraged,  the  exercise  of  prophecy  should  be  pre- 
ferred. By  so  doing  the  interest  of  decorum  and  utility 
will  best  be  promote^' 

We  thus  observe  that  Paul  shares  the  popular  view  that 
the  Spirit  bestows  extraordinary  gifts  and  experiences,  but 
that  he  judges  and  regulates  their  employment  in  the 
assembly  by  their  adaptedness  to  edify  all.  Utility  is  not 
so  much  the  test  of  their  reality  as  of  their  use.  Paul  re- 
joices that  as  a  speaker  in  tongues  he  surpasses  all  those 
to  whom  he  is  writing ;  but  in  the  assembly  he  would 
rather  speak  the  fewest  words  in  plainness,  in  order  to 
edify  others,  than  "  ten  thousand  words  in  a  tongue  "  (y. 
19).  "Herein  we  observe,"  says  Gunkel,  "the  difference 
in  principle  between  the  Pauline  and  the  popular  concep- 
tion. For  the  congregation  the  charisms  are  astounding 
wonders ;  the  most  valuable  is  that  in  which  the  miracu- 
lous is  most  clearly  manifest.  No  thought  is  given  to  its 
purpose.  But  for  Paul  the  charisms  have  a  divine  aim  — 
the  edification  of  the  Church.  By  this  test  the  worth  of 
the  various  gifts  is  estimated."  ^  Paul  treats  the  subject 
in  a  practical,  ethical  interest.  Thus  the  representations 
which  we  have  been  reviewing  pave  the  way  to  what  we 
should  call  a  more  purely  spiritual  conception  of  the 
Spirit's  working.  The  emphasis  of  the  apostle's  teaching 
concerning  the  Spirit  is  found  to  lie  within  the  ethical  life. 
The  Spirit  is,  indeed,  the  cause  of  the  marvellous,  but  the 
most  truly  marvellous  is  found  in  the  inner  life.  His  own 
conversion  and  his  experience  as  a  Christian  were  always 
before  his  mind  as  the  typical  example  of  the  Spirit's 
work.  The  holy  life  was  to  Paul  the  greatest  marvel, 
the  most  convincing  evidence  of  the  Spirit's  power. 
Accordingly,  we  find  scarcely  any  references  to  these  out- 
ward "  gifts  "  except  in  the  letters  to  Corinth  where  he  had 
found  a  peculiarly  excitable  type  of  religious  life.  Taking 
his  references  to  the  subject  as  a  whole,  we  find  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  distinctly  correlated  with  a  holy.  Christlike 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  74. 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  437 

life.  The  Spirit  is  lioly  (irvevixa  dyiov)^  and  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  is  sanctification  (^dyiacrfjLOi;^.  Paul  speaks  of 
"  salvation  in  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,"  that  iSi^anctifi- 
cation  wrought  by  the  Spirit  (2  Thess.  ii.  13).  '^he  life 
in  the  Spirit  is  the  counterpart  of  that  justification  by 
which  the  believer  was  accepted  and  forgiven.  With 
Paul  these  are  inseparable  elements  or  aspects  of  the 
process  of  salvation.  They  are  organically  related  to 
each  other.\  Justification  opens  the  way  into  the  new  life  ; 
sanctification  is  the  development  of  that  life  through  the 
union  with  Christ  which  is  entered  into  by  faith.  Some- 
times he  blends  them  together  in  what  must  seem  to  a 
schematic  theology  a  most  reckless  disregard  of  the  nor- 
mal or  do  salutis^  as  when  he  exclaimed  to  the  Corinthians  : 
"  But  ye  were  washed,  but  ye  were  sanctified,  but  ye  were 
justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the 
Spirit  of  our  God"  (1  Cor.  vi.  11). 

'  The  truly  "  spiritual "  man,  the  man  in  whom  the  Spirit 
truly  predominates,  is  the  man  whose  life,  inner  and  outer, 
is  Christlike.  "  If  we  live  by  the  Spirit,  by  the  Spirit  let 
us  also  walk"  (Gal.  v.  25).  Although  love  is  not  spoken 
of  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  as  a  "gift  of  the  Spirit,"  it  is  evident 
that  it  is  such  for  the  apostle's  mind  because  in  Gal.  v.  19 
it  is  first  named  in  the  list  of  the  "  fruit  of  the  Spirit," 
and  because  the  consciousness  of  God's  love  to  us  is  as- 
cribed to  the  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart  (Rom. 
V.  5).  The  same  influence  which  quickens  man's  sense 
of  God's  love  must  also  kindle  man's  love  to  God.  To 
"  walk  by  the  Spirit "  is  the  surest  guaranty  against  the 
sinful  life  (Gal.  v.  16),  and  the  truly  spiritual  iiian  will 
be  the  bearer  of  others'  burdens  (Gal.  vi.  1,  2^j,  How 
radically  different  Avas  Paul's  attitude  towards  "  spiritual 
things  "  (TTvev/jLaTtKci^  1  Cor.  xii.  1 ;  xiv.  1)  from  that  of  the 
vain  and  contentious  Corinthians  !  To  them  he  was  most 
"  spiritual "  who  evinced  the  most  showy  gifts,  who  rev- 
elled most  in  visions  and  raptures  and  in  frenzied  utter- 
ance. To  Paul  he  is  most  spiritual  who  shows  compassion 
towards  the  erring,  seeking  to  restore  such  in  a  spirit  of 
meekness,  remembering  his  own  liability  to  temptation ; 


438  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

who  enters  by  sympathy  into  the  suffering  lot  of  others 
and  "  parts  their  burdens,  taking  half  himself."  "  For  if," 
adds  the  apostle,  "a  man  thinketh  himself  to  be  some- 
thing, when  he  is  nothing,  he  deceiveth  himself"  (Gal. 
vi.  3).  In  the  popular  sense  of  "spiritual,"  Corinth  was 
the  most  "  spiritual "  church  in  the  apostolic  age  ;  but  it 
was  the  most  factious,  contentious,  and  immoral  church  of 
the  period.  Similar  tests  of  "  spirituality  "  have  always 
been  in  vogue  —  showy  gifts,  frantic  enthusiasm,  extrava- 
gant self-assertion.  All  need  to  be  tested  by  the  standard 
which  Paul  applied.  Without  the  love  which  is  modest 
and  humble,  and  which  serves  and  bears,  they  are  worth- 
less. They  foster  only  the  self-deception  of  him  who 
thinks  himself  to  be  something  when  he  is  nothing. 

Paul  insists  that  the  Holy  Spirit  sanctifies  not  only  the 
inner  life,  but  the  body  as  well.  "  Know  ye  not,"  he  ex- 
claims, "that  your  body  is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have  from  God  "  (1  Cor.  vi.  19)? 
This  is  the  keynote  of  his  argument  against  the  defile- 
ment of  the  body  by  sensuous  sins.  The  Christian  has 
been  cleansed  by  the  divine  Spirit;  he  has  received  a 
spiritual  life  to  which  such  sins  are  utterly  contrary. 
"The  body  is  for  the  Lord"  (vi.  13).  The  Spirit  of 
God  dwells  within  it.  Hence  sensuality  is  sacrilege.  In 
Corinth  sensuous  sins  were  lightly  regarded.  A  fornica- 
tor was  harbored  in  the  church.  Hence  special  emphasis 
upon  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  body  was  neces- 
sary. "  Know  ye  not,"  writes  the  apostle,  "  that  ye  are  a 
temple  of  God,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in 
you?  If  any  man  destroyeth  the  temple  of  God,  him 
shall  God  destroy ;  for  the  temple  of  God  is  holy,  which 
temple  ye  are"  (1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17).  And  as  the  indi- 
vidual believer,  alike  in  his  inward  and  his  outAvard  life, 
is  an  abode  of  the  Spirit,  so  also  is  the  body  of  believers 
"  builded  together  for  a  habitation  of  God  in  the  Spirit " 
(Eph.  ii.  22).  The  Church  is  a  spiritual  and  holy  temple, 
reared  "  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets, 
Christ  Jesus  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone  "  (ii.  20). 
Each  believer  is  a  stone  built  into  this  temple,  which  is 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  439 

founded  in  truth,  sliapely  in  its  proportions,  and  radiant 
in  its  beauty.  When  we  contemplate  the  deformed  "  spir- 
ituality "  of  the  churches  of  the  apostolic  age,  we  can  but 
admire  the  splendid  and  persistent  optimism  of  the  apostle 
which  enabled  him  still  to  cherish  such  a  lofty  ideal  and 
prophetic  hope  for  the  Church  at  large. 

Paul's  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  is  at  once  ideal  and  practi- 
cal. It  deals  with  the  commonest  and  homeliest  virtues, 
and  regards  them  as  tlie  products  of  the  Spirit's  indwell- 
ing. Not  devout  fervors  alone,  not  dreams  of  far-off 
ideals  alone,  but  the  ever3"-day  qualities  which  one  needs 
most  in  his  commonplace  life,  are  the  Spirit's  work. 
"  The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering, 
kindness,  goodness,  faithfulness,  meekness,  self-control " 
(Gal.  V.  22).  These  are  the  virtues  which  men  need  for 
every  day's  common  life  and  experience.  They  are  the 
very  substance  of  a  good  and  useful  life.  They  make  up 
the  value  and  dignity  of  life.  And  see  how  Paul  ennobles 
them  by  assuring  us  that  the  plainest  qualities,  such  as 
sympathy,  generosity,  patience,  and  helpfulness,  are  divine  ; 
yes,  they  are,  in  his  view,  the  divinest  things  in  man's  life. 
They  are  the  ripe  fruitage  of  the  Spirit's  life  in  man. 
They  are  the  fulfilment  of  God's  law.  Their  possession 
is  heirship  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  for  "  the  Kingdom  of 
God  is  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost  " 
(Rom.  xiv.  17).  This  Kingdom  is,  indeed,  a  dream,  a 
perfected  society,  an  ideal  life ;  but  it  is  also  a  present 
reality  in  so  far  as  men  live  the  life  of  the  Spirit  and  pro- 
duce the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  in  their  character  and  action. 
Thus  we  see  how  Paul  refuses  to  connect  the  Spirit  only 
with  the  miraculous  and  the  extraordinary.  The  spiritual 
covers  man's  common  life  and  daily  duty.  It  embraces 
his  plainest  virtues,  and  dignifies  them  by  connecting 
them  with  God  and  with  God's  presence  and  power  in 
human  life.  When  the  religious  ideas  of  the  apostolic 
age  are  considered,  this  correlation  of  the  Spirit  with 
man's  ethical  and  practical  life  seems  to  be  Paul's  great- 
est contribution  to  the  doctrine  under  consideration.  In 
Judaism  and  in  primitive  Christianity  the  work  of  the 


440  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

Spirit  was  viewed  as  sporadic  and  special ;  with  Paul  it 
is  constant  and  general.  Popularly,  the  Spirit  was  corre- 
lated with  extraordinary  deeds  and  experiences ;  by  Paul 
it  is  correlated  with  the  whole  religious  and  ethical  life. 
On  tliis  point  Gunkel  aptly  says :  "  The  community  re- 
gards as  pneumatic  the  extraordinary  in  the  life  of  the 
Christian,  Paul  the  ordinary ;  they  that  which  is  peculiar 
to  individuals,  Paul  that  which  is  common  to  all ;  they 
that  which  occurs  abruptly,  Paul  that  which  is  constant ; 
they  the  special  in  the  Christian  life,  Paul  the  Christian 
life  itself.  Hence  the  value  which  the  primitive  Church 
attaches  to  miracles,  Paul  attaches  to  the  Christian  state. 
No  more  is  that  which  is  individual  and  sporadic  held  to 
be  the  divine  in  man ;  the  Christian  man  is  the  spiritual 
man."  This  author  justly  adds:  ''We  do  not  hesitate  to 
pronounce  this  thought  one  of  Paul's  most  ingenious  and 

/      truly  spiritual  conceptions."  ^ 

'  fWe  reach  the  apostle's  most  characteristic  thoughts  in 

his^doctrine  of  the  Spirit's  wituess  in  the  believer  assur- 
ing hin^  of  his  sonship  to  God.  /  It  is  not  quite  clear,  at 
first  sight,  whether  the  Spirit  is  conceived  of  as  the  cause 
of  the  fact  of  sonship,  or  as  the  cause  of  the  assurance  of 
it.  I  hold  the  latter  to  be  Paul's  thought.  Adoption  is 
a  synonym  for  justification.  It  is  conceived  as  a  single 
act  of  God  by  which  the  ^believer  is  received  into  the 
divine  favor  and  fellowship.;  This  view  is  rendered  quite 
certain  by  such  passages  as  Rom.  viii.  14  :  "  For  as  many 
as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  these  are  sons  of  God ;  " 
and,  especially,  Gal.  iii.  26,  27:  "For  ye  are  all  sons  of 
God,  through  faith,  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  as  many  of  you 
as  were  baptized  into  Christ  did  put  on  Christ."  Then 
the  apostle  adds :  "  And  because  ye  are  sons,  God  sent 
forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba, 
Father"  (Gal.  iv.  6).  The  sinner  becomes  a  son  of  God 
in  justification  by  faith.  VTo  this  fact  the  Spirit  bears 
witness,  enabling  him.ta  realize  the  certainty  of  his  son- 
sliip-taGod.  With  this  agrees  Rom.  viii.  15-17,  where 
the   believer   is  said  not  to   have  received  "  a  Spirit  of 

1  Die  Wirkungen  des  heiligen  Geistes,  p.  82. 


THE   HOLY    SPIEIT  441 

bondage,"  but  "a  Spirit  of  adoption";  that  is,  the  Holy 
Spirit  which  lie  received  is  not  a  Spirit  which  accompanies 
bondage  and  causes  fear,  but  a  Spirit  which  accompanies 
adoption  and  enables  the  believer  to  rest  in  the  conscious- 
ness that  he  is  a  son  of  GocH;  "  The  Spirit  beareth  witness 
with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  children  of  God,  and  if  chil- 
dren, then  heirs,"  etc.  In  Gal.  iv.  6  it  is  the  Spirit  who 
is  said  to  cry,  "  Abba,  Father,"  but  it  is  evident  that  the 
meaning  is :  The  Spirit  inspires  in  the  heart  the  convic- 
tion of  sonship  which  is  expressed  in  the  cry,  "Abba, 
Father."  The  matter  is  so  presented  in  Rom.  viii.  15, 
where  it  is  the  believers  who,  under  the  inspiration  of  a 
Spirit  of  adoption,  are  enabled  to  cry,  "Abba,  Father." 
I  understand  the  apostle  to  use  this  expression,  which  was 
probably  a  current  formula  in  prayer,  as  a  symbol  of  the 
conviction  of  sonship.  I  see  no  reason  for  supposing, 
with  Gunkel,  that  the  utterance  of  this  cry  was  one  of 
the  ecstatic  phenomena  of  the  glossolalia.^  The  thought 
of  both  passages  where  the  Abba-cry  is  mentioned  is  quite 
remote  from  the  subject  of  speaking  with  tongues. 

The  Spirit,  then,  is  a  powerful  aid  and  comfort  in  the 
life  of  the  Christian.  The  Spirit  is  the  "  Spirit  of  life  " 
(Rom.  viii.  2),  by  whose  power  the  Christian  is  made  free 
from  sin.  "  According  to  the  Spirit "  he  is  to  walk  (^v.  4), 
since  in  him  the  Spirit  dwells  (v.  9).  The  life-giving 
Spirit  is  also  the  guaranty  of  the  resurrection  life  (v.  11). 
Christians  "have  the  first-fruits  of  the  Spirit"  (v.  23), 
the  pledge  of  greater  blessings  to  come.  The  Spirit 
strengthens  the  inner  life  of  the  believer.  By  the  Spirit 
he  is  aided  to  pray  as  he  ought,  and  the  apostle  adds  : 
"  The  Spirit  himself  maketh  intercession  for  us  with 
groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered  ;  and  he  that  search- 
eth  the  hearts  knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit, 
because  he  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  according 
to  God"  {vv.  26,  27).  Here,  as  in  Gal.  iv.  6,  the  utter- 
ance of  the  believer  in  aspiration  and  prayer  is  described 

1  0}).  cit.,  p.  66.  Gunkel,  p.  67,  refers  the  groaning  of  creation  (Rom. 
viii.  22)  and  of  the  Spirit  (v.  20)  to  the  same  category.  The  explanation 
seems  to  me  far  fetched  in  both  cases. 


442  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

as  an  utterance  of  the  Spirit.  The  meaning  is  that  the 
Spirit  inspires  it  (^/.  v.  23) ;  that  even  in  the  believer's 
inarticulate  sigh  the  Spirit's  voice  is  heard.  The  believ- 
er's yearning  desire  may  be  very  ill  defined  ;  it  may  be 
none  the  less  genuine ;  the  Spirit  inspires  it,  and,  although 
the  believer  himself  may  not  be  able  to  interpret  his  own 
prayer,  God  can  interpret  it,  for  the  Spirit's  work  is  all  ac- 
cording to  his  will.  It  is  God  who  is  supervising  all  that 
happens  in  the  life  of  the  believer,  and  making  all  things 
cooperate  for  his  good  (^.  28).  This  intercession  or  en- 
treaty on  our  behalf  by  the  Spirit  is  conceived  of  as  taking 
place  through  an  inspiration  of  the  believer's  own  thought 
and  feeling  and  as  uttering  itself  in  inarticulate  sounds. 
The  whole  passage  means  that,  although  we  do  not  defi- 
nitely know  what  we  ought  to  desire  from  God,  and  cannot 
state  our  wishes  in  adequate  language,  but  can  only  dis- 
close them  in  such  expressions  as  sighs  and  groans,  yet 
God  will  receive  such  prayers  inasmuch  as  they  come 
from  a  heart  which  is  inspired  by  his  own  Spirit. 

What,  then,  is  the  Spirit,  according  to  Paul  ?  From 
1  Cor.  ii.  10  sq.  we  might  be  led  to  suppose  that  the  Spirit 
is  a  name  for  the  divine  self -consciousness.  It  is  the  spirit 
of  a  man,  says  Paul,  which  knows  the  man ;  just  so  it  is 
the  Spirit  of  God  which  knows  God  and  searches  the 
deeps  of  the  divine  nature  (^vv.  10,  11).  Here  we  must 
remember  that  we  have  to  do  with  an  analogy,  and  that 
the  analogy  is  used  for  a  particular  purpose.  Paul  is 
discussing  earthly  and  heavenly  wisdom.  The  former  is 
taught  in  the  schools  and  by  the  rhetoricians ;  the  latter 
is  bestowed  by  the  Spirit.  He  then  refers  to  the  depths 
of  this  divine  Avisdom  which  the  Spirit  searches  and 
reveals,  and  in  order  to  emphasize  that  thought  appeals  to 
the  analogy  of  a  man's  own  self-knowledge  in  comparison 
with  the  knowledge  which  others  have  of  him.  The  point 
of  the  argument  here  is  :  The  Spirit  knows  the  heavenly 
wisdom  as  much  better  than  the  sophist  or  philosopher 
does  as  a  man  knows  his  own  inner  thought  and  feeling 
better  than  another  man  does.  By  this  analogy  Paul 
does  not  mean  to  teach  anything  concerning  the  nature 
of  the  Spirit. 


{ 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  443 

'  Does  Paul  identify  the  Spirit  with  the  glorified  Christ  ? 
He  certainly  applies  the  term  irvevfia  to  Christ :  "  The 
last  Adam  [became]  a  life-giving  spirit "  (Trvevfia  ^qjottol- 
ow,  1  Cor.  XV.  45)  ;  "  Now  the  Lord  is  the  Spirit "  (^rb 
TTvevfJia)  ;  "  as  from  the  Lord  the  Spirit  (airo  Kvpiov  irvev- 
fjLaro^,  2  Cor.  iii.  17,  18).  Certainly  the  first  of  these 
passages  is  not  available  as  a  proof  of  the  identity  of  the 
Spirit  with  Christ."')  The  apostle  is  contrasting  Adam  as, 
by  his  creation,  a  natural  man,  with  Christ  who  became 
by  his  resurrection  a  life-giving  Spirit  who,  as  such,  is 
heavenly  (iirovpdvto^^  and  in  whose  likeness  men  shall  be 
when  they  receive  the  awixa  Trvev^ianKov.  It  cannot  be 
maintained  that  by  Trvev/na  ^coottolovv  here  Paul  means  the 
same  as  elsewhere  by  to  irvevfia  and  its  equivalents.  In 
the  second  passage  the  Lord  is  called  to  Trvevfia  (2  Cor. 
iii.  17,  18),  but  the  apostle  immediately  adds,  ''  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord"  (to  Trvevfxa  Kvpiov).  When  we  consider 
the  connection,  we  see  that  he  is  contrasting  the  old  and 
the  new  covenants.  The  former  was  a  dispensation  of 
outward  commandments ;  the  latter  a  dispensation  of 
spiritual  principles  and  laws;  (^e  word  to  describe  the 
former  is  "  letter  "  (<ypdixp.d)  ;  that  to  describe  the  latter 
is  "spirit"  (y.  7).  Now  the  apostle  sums  up  the  nature  of 
the  gospel  in  the  words :  "  The  Lord  is  the  Spirit ;  "  he 
is  the  life-giving  Spirit  of  the  new  dispensatigti  It  is 
evident  that  Paul  is  not  here  giving  a  theoretic  descrip- 
tion of  the  essence  or  substance  of  the  Lord,  which  justi- 
fies a  metaphysical  identification  of  Christ  with  the  "  Holy 
Spirit,"  but  is  describing  him  as  a  source  of  spiritual 
blessing  to  those  who  turn  to  him  J  Christ  sums  up  the 
spiritual  system  in  himself,  as  Moses  sums  up  the  legal 
system.  If  one  were  to  seek  here  theoretic  determina- 
tions concerning  the  metaphysics  of  Deity,  it  would  be 
as  legitimate  to  call  attention  to  the  distinction  observed 
between  the  Spirit  and  the  Lord  as  to  their  identification 
(y.  17).  In  either  case  we  should  be  quite  transcending 
the  apostle's  thought. 

But  how,  then,  does  Paul  think  of  the  nature  of  the 
Spirit  ?     Is  the  Spirit  a  generalization  of  man's  religious 


444  THE  THEOLOGY   OF  PAUL 

experience,  a  force,  a  substance,  a  person  ?  ^  We  must 
admit  that  Paul's  language  does  not  furnish  us  with  the 
materials  for  an  accurate  definition  of  the  Spirit. ^  It  is, 
however,  certain  that  the  Spirit  was  to  him  an  objective 
divine  reality  and  power.  Perhaps  he  did  not  more 
sharply  define  his  own  conception.  His  language  is,  for 
the  most  part,  general  and  practical,  and  does  not  lend 
itself  to  our  aid  in  the  metaphysics  of  the  subject,  i  Re- 
garding the  personality  of  the  Spirit,  the  question  should 
be,  not  whether  Paul  thought  of  the  Spirit  as  a  person 
distinct  from  God  and  Christ,  but  whether  what  he  says 
of  the  Spirit  naturally  involves  that  conclusion  for  us.  In 
/  general  we  must  say  that  the  Spirit  is  distinguished  from 
God  and  from  Christ.  God  sends  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
into  the  hearts  of  men.  He  works  (ivep^eT)  in  believers 
(1  Cor.  xii.  11)  as  he  wills  {KaOoj^;  ^ovXeTai).,  and  dwells 
(olKeT)  in  them  (Rom.  viii.  9).  He  leads  believers  (y.  14) 
and  bears  witness  in  them  (v.  16)  ;  he  helps  (y.  26)  and 
teaches  them  (1  Cor.  ii.  13).    To  such  expressions  should 

1  Respecting  Paul's  view  of  the  nature  of  the  Spirit  opinion  is  much 
divided.  Holsten,  Zum  Ev.  d.  Paulus  n.  Petriis,  p.  378,  defined  it  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  supposed  metaphysical  dualism  of  Paul,  as  a  material 
substance.  This  view  of  spirit  in  general  as  "  superterrestrial  material 
substance"  (iiberirdisch-stoffliche  Substanz)  has  been  extensively  applied 
to  Paul's  eschatology  by  Richard  Kabisch,  Die  Eschatologie  des  Faidus, 
p.  188  sq.  For  Wendt,  Fleisch  u.  Geist,  pp.  139-146,  the  Spirit  is  a  name 
for  the  totality  of  those  supernatural  operations  of  power  in  which  God 
reveals  himself.  Pfleiderer  says,  Paidinisimis,  p.  207  :  The  Spirit  is  "an 
independent  divine  power  and  reality,"  "a  supernatural  divine  life- 
power."  Similarly  Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theol.  Bk.  IV.  ch.  vii.  §  2,Trvevixa 
=  dijfaiiiLs  (1  Cor.  ii.  4),  and  Gunkel,  op  ciL,  51  :  "The  principal  idea  in 
the  conception  of  the  Spirit  is  always  that  it  is  a  supernatural  power. 
This  is  the  most  exact  definition  of  the  Spirit."  Issel,  Ber  Begriff  d. 
Heiligkeit  im  N.  T.  p.  56,  reduces  the  Spirit  to  the  consciousness  of  son- 
ship  in  believers.  Ritschl,  Bechtf.  u.  Versohn.  iii.  562,  defines  the  Spirit 
as  "  the  common  thought  of  God  as  our  Father,  so  far  as  this  is  a  com- 
prehensive motive  of  our  moral  and  religious  life,"  etc.  Gloel,  Ber  heil. 
Geist,  pp.  376,  377,  holds  that  although  Paul  has  not  explicitly  predicated 
personality  of  the  Spirit,  he  does  ascribe  to  this  power  functions  which 
we  can  interpret  only  as  the  functions  of  personal  life. 

2  Dazu  kommt,  dass  wir  es  bei  dem  Geiste  iiberhaupt  mit  einer  Grosse 
zu  thun  haben,  die  wir  wohl  beschreiben,  nicht  aber  im  eigentlichen  Sinne 
definieren  konuen.     Gloel,  Ber  heil.  Geist,  p.  370. 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT  445 

be  added  Paul's  coordination  of  the  Spirit  with  the  Father 
and  with  Christ  in  such  passages  as  2  Cor.  xiii.  14  :  "  The 
grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and 
the  communion  of  the  Hol}^  Ghost,  be  with  you  all ;  " 
1  Cor.  xii.  4-6 :  "  Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but 
the  same  Spirit.  And  there  are  diversities  of  ministra- 
tions, and  the  same  Lord.  And  there  are  diversities  of 
workings,  but  the  same  God,  who  worketh  all  things  in 
all ; "  and  Eph.  iv.  4-6  :  "  There  is  one  body,  and  one 
Spirit,  even  as  also  ye  were  called  in  one  hope  of  your 
calling;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and 
Father  of  all,  who  is  over  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  all.j 
The  problem  to  which  these  passages  give  rise  lies  in 
the  field  of  doctrinal  theology.  It  is  only  necessary  here 
to  point  out  the  considerations  derived  from  Paul's  writ- 
ings, which  have  contributed  to  the  theological  doctrines 
ofTth^  p,ersoiiality  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  of  the  Trinity. 
ByVome  tliis  ^personification  of  the  Spirit  is  regarded  as 
purely  poetical  and  rhetorical. ^  It  is,  however,  quite  cer- 
tain that  there  are  important  differences  between  Paul's 
personifications  of  sin  and  death  and  his  personification  of 
the  Spirit.  ;  The  operations  of  the  Spirit  are,  in  any  case, 
really  personal  whether  the  Spirit  is  distinguished  from 
God  and  Christ  or  not.  To  say  that  the  Spirit  is  a  power, 
as  Beyschlag  does,  defines  nothing.  It  is  to  take  refuge 
in  an  abstraction.  God  is  also  called  a  power  (Mt.  xxvi. 
64)  without  detriment  to  the  conviction  of  his  personality. 
I  am  confident  that  no  such  coordination  with  God  and 
Christ  as  we  observe  in  the  case  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
three  passages  above  cited  (2  Cor.  xiii.  14 ;  1  Cor.  xii.  4- 
6  ;  Eph.  iv.  4-6)  can  either  be  found,  or  even  reasonably 
imagined,  in  the  case  of  any  of  Paul's  other  personifica- 
tions. It  seems  to  me  that  reflective  thought  can  most 
naturally  construe  the  functions  of  the  Spirit,  as  Paul 
describes  them,  upon  the  view  that  the  Spirit  is  a  self 
distinct  from  God  and  from  Christ.' 

1  So  Beyschlag,  iV.  T.  Theol.  II.  207  (Bk.  IV.  ch.  vii.  §  2)  :  "Our 
apostle  has,  indeed,  poetically  and  rhetorically  personified  the  Holy  Spirit 
now  and  then,  just  as  he  has  personified  the  flesh,  sin,  and  death." 


CHAPTER  X 

SOCIAL    MORALITY 

The  logical  root  of  Paul's  ethics  is  found  in  his  doctrine 
of  love,  the  most  fundamental  and  comprehensive  virtue. 
But  the  apostle  does  not  rest  in  a  general  subjective  prin- 
ciple. The  outer  life  must  be  conformed  to  the  require- 
ments of  truth  and  righteousness.  The  life  of  the  Spirit 
must  be  expressed  in  outward  relations.  "  If  we  live  by 
the  Spirit,  by  the  Spirit  let  us  also  walk''  (Gal.  v.  25). 
Paul  lived  at  a  time  when  society  was  extremely  corrupt. 
His  description  of  heathen  morals  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Romans,  and  his  allusions  to  the  state  of  Greek  society  in 
the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  throw  a  lurid  light  upon 
the  gross  perversions  of  natural  life  which  obtained  in  his 
age,  especially  in  regard  to  the  relations  of  the  sexes. 
Chastity  had  almost  ceased  to  be  required  of  men,  and 
the  honor  of  woman  was  lightly  esteemed  in  the  Grseco- 
Roman  world.  The  apostle  insisted  upon  both.  He 
taught  that  man  and  woman  were  upon  the  same  plane  as 
respects  their  personal  dignity  and  value  before  God 
(Gal.  iii.  28 ;  1  Cor.  xi.  11),  and  he  uncompromisingly 
demanded  sexual  purity  in  both.  "The  body  is  for  the 
Lord,"  he  exclaims  ;  "  flee  fornication  "  (1  Cor.  vi.  13, 17; 
ef.  1  Thess.  iv.  3,  4).  He  required  that  the  incestuous 
man  in  the  Corinthian  church  should  be  expelled  (1  Cor. 
V.  7).  He  was,  indeed,  aware  that  in  heathen  society,  as 
then  constituted,  it  was  not  possible  for  the  Christians  to 
avoid  all  associations  with  those  who  were  guilty  of  such 
sins,  "for  then  must  they  needs  go  out  of  the  world" 
(1  Cor.  V.  10).  But  within  the  church  no  one  guilty  of 
such  sins  as  fornication,  idolatry,  and  drunkenness  was  to 
be  tolerated  (y.  11). 

446 


SOCIAL   MORALITY  447 

Paul  presupposes  that  the  family  should  be  monogamous 
(1  Cor.  vii.  2).  He  assumes  that  marriage  is  a  natural 
relation,  founded  in  the  divine  order  for  human  life,  and  he 
knows  that  Christ  expressed  himself  with  regard  to  its  na- 
ture and  sanction  (1  Cor.  vii.  6,  10,  40).  The  Corinthians 
had  submitted  to  the  apostle  certain  questions  respecting 
tlie  relations  of  the  sexes  on  which  he  proceeds  to  express 
his  personal  conviction  and  feeling.  They  had  asked 
whether,  in  general,  the  married  or  the  unmarried  state 
were  preferable  (1  Cor.  vii.  1);  wliether,  for  example, 
virgins  and  widows  had  better  marry  or  remain  single 
(vii.  8);  and  whether  Christian  and  heathen  partners 
should  remain  united  (vii.  10).  In  each  case  the  apostle 
disclaims  having  any  word  of  Christ  which  furnishes  an 
explicit  answer  to  this  question.  He  believes,  however, 
that  he  has  the  Spirit  (vii.  40),  and  that  he  can  answer 
the  questions  in  accord  with  the  demands  of  Christian 
expediency. 

In  answer  to  the  first  question  he  recommends,  in  gen- 
eral, the  celibate  state.  Marriage  is  permissible  and  is 
even  useful  as  a  preventive  of  unlawful  desire,  but  the 
unmarried  state  is  to  be  preferred.  What  is  the  ground 
of  this  preference  ?  Many  scholars  answer  that  it  is  found 
in  an  ascetic  view  of  the  natural  life  based  on  Paul's  dual- 
ism of  flesh  and  spirit.^  The  apostle's  view  certainly  wears 
an  ascetic  appearance.  But  did  it  have  its  root,  for  his 
mind,  in  an  ascetic  view  of  the  world  ?  He  has  not  con- 
nected it  with  the  contrast  of  flesh  and  spirit,  and  even  if 
he  had  done  so,  it  would  not  follow  that  marriage,  if  it 
belonged  to  the  former  category,  would  be  unholy,  since 
flesh  and  spirit  are  not  necessarily  synonymous  with  evil 
and  good.  When  he  commends  celibacy  in  preference  to 
marriage  he  does  not  add  that  marriage  is  evil,  but  says 
that  it  is,  at  least,  a  relative  good.    One  man  may  have  his 

1  So  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  IT.  153,  who  speaks  of  Rom.  viii.  13, 
as  an  "  asketisches  Schlagwort"  ;  Pfleiderer,  Paulinismus,  p.  259,  who 
thinks  that  Paul,  in  consequence  of  his  dualism,  regarded  marriage  as 
less  holy  than  celibacy,  because  it  belonged  to  the  earthly  life.  Weiz- 
sacker,  Apos.  Age,  ch.  iii.  sec.  ii.  §  7,  expresses,  in  guarded  language,  a 
similar  view. 


448  THE  THEOLOGY   OF  PAUL 

"  gift  from  God "  after  that  manner,  another  after  the 
manner  preferred  by  the  apostle  (1  Cor.  vii.  7).  But  is 
marriage,  then,  good  only  because  it  prevents  inconti- 
nence ?  Is  it,  after  all,  but  the  lesser  of  two  evils  ?  Paul 
.  does  not  say  this,  and  such  a  meaning  does  not  agree  with 
j  what  he  writes  concerning  marriage  in  Eph.  v.  22-33, 
where  the  whole  subject  is  transferred  into  the  ethical 
sphere  and  treated  as  a  realization  of  the  life  of  love 
analogous  to  the  communion  between  Christ  and  his 
Church. 1  After  a  digression  (1  Cor.  vii.  10-24)  upon 
mixed  marriages  and  social  classes,  Paul  resumes  the  sub- 
ject (vii.  25  sg.)  by  taking  the  specific  case  of  virgins  — 
no  doubt  in  answer  to  a  special  question.  Now  for  the 
first  time  does  he  give  a  reason  for  his  advice  against 
marriage.  It  is  this  :  "  I  think  therefore  that  it  is  good 
I  by  reason  of  the  impending  distress,  namely,  that  it  is 
\  good  for  a  man  to  be  as  he  is"  (vii.  26).  Paul  expects 
\  the  return  of  the  Lord  in  the  near  future.  This  event  is 
I  to  be  preceded  by  the  "  woes  of  the  Messiah  "  (^cf.  2  Thess. 
ii.  1-12)  —  a  fearful  manifestation  of  the  powers  of  evil, 
which  will  tax  and  try  the  souls  of  the  faithful.  This  is 
the  "  impending  distress  "  (?;  ivecrraxra  avd'ytcTf)  which  the 
apostle  sees  as  imminent,  and  in  view  of  which  he  thinks 
all  changes  of  one's  social  state,  and  especially  the  assump- 
tion of  new  responsibilities,  inexpedient.  The  married 
will  experience  special  tribulations  in  that  great  coming 
trial  (y.  28).  But  even  the  conditions  already  present 
point,  for  Paul,  to  the  same  conclusion.  The  married  are 
more  encumbered  with  cares  than  the  unmarried,  and  are 
not  so  well  able  to  devote  themselves  entirely  to  whatever 
duties  the  present  and  future  may  bring.  The  married 
must  have  responsibilities  to  one  another  which  render 
undivided  service  impossible.  It  is  better,  urges  the 
apostle,  that  the  unmarried  person  remain  so,  "  in  order 
that  he  may  attend  upon  the  Lord  without  distraction" 
(yv.  32-35). 

These  are  the  only  reasons  which  Paul  himself  gives  for 

1  The  scholars  cited  in  the  previous  note  do  not,  of  course,  admit  the 
genuineness  of  Ephesians. 


SOCIAL    MORALITY  449 

recommending  celibacy.  All  other  supposed  reasons  are 
conjectural.  He  insists  that  if  his  "  judgment "  is  disre- 
garded, no  sin  is  committed.  He  does  not  intimate  that 
marriage  is  sinful.  How,  then,  can  it  be  essentially  "  less 
holy "  (Pfleiderer)  than  celibacy  ?  He  says  that  if  the 
father  or  guardian  of  the  virgin  shall  deem  it  wise  to  give 
her  in  marriage,  he  "  doeth  well "  ;  though  he  adds  that  if 
he  does  not  give  her,  he  shall  "  do  better  "  (v.  38).  "  She 
is  happier  if  she  abide  as  she  is,  according  to  my  judge- 
ment "  (y.  40),  says  Paul.  But  this  is  not  presented  as  a 
question  of  good  and  had^  or  even  as  one  of  better  or  ivorse^ 
but  as  one  of  well  or  better^  that  is,  as  a  question  of  wisdom 
and  expediency  in  view  of  present  and  prospective  con- 
ditions, as  the  apostle  interprets  them.  It  is  quite  true 
that  in  1  Cor.  vii.  marriage  is  not  placed  upon  high  ground, 
and  that  the  apostle's  expediency  was  the  product  of  a 
natural,  but  mistaken,  eschatology  which  cut  off  all  hope 
of  the  workl's  continued  progress  and  made  the  j)ropaga- 
tion  of  the  race  seem  unimportant.  In  these  views,  not 
in  asceticism,  I  find  the  motive  of  what  he  says  about 
marriage.^ 

Paul  knows  that  Jesus  discountenanced  divorce  (1  Cor. 
vii.  10,  11).  He  repeats  the  same  principle,  and  adds  the 
inference  that  if  separation  does,  nevertheless,  take  place, 
remarriage  is  not  thereby  permitted.  But  what  shall  be 
said  of  cases  where  Christians  and  heathen  are  united  in 
marriage  ?  Shall  they  separate  ?  In  general,  Paul's  answer 
is  negative  (yv.  12,  13).  If  they  can  be  content  to  dwell 
together,  they  should  do  so.  The  Christian  partner  "sanc- 
tifies," that  is,  brings  within  Christian  influence,  the  non- 
Christian  partner,  as  well  as  the  children  of  the  union 
(y.  14).  But  what  if  the  heathen  partner  refuses  to  dwell 
with  the  Christian  and  departs,  thus  sundering  de  facto 
the  marriage  bond?  The  apostle  does  not  think  that  Jesus' 
general  principle  of  non-separation  furnishes  an  answer  to 

1  Similarly  Beyschlag:  "Paul  nowhere  urges  in  support  of  this  view 
of  his  an  ascetic  motive,  or  regards  the  unmarried  life  as  a  higher  stage  of 
morality  ;  his  reasons  for  preferring  it  are  plainly  of  another  character." 
N.  T.  TheoL  11.  221  (Bk.  IV.  ch.  vii.  §  5). 
2g 


450  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

this  question ;  and  he  gives  it  as  his  own  judgment  that, 
in  such  cases,  the  believing  party  may  acquiesce  in  the 
separation.  In  this  way  the  interests  of  peace  will  best 
be  conserved  (v.  15).  If  it  is  argued  that  such  a  separa- 
tion forfeits  the  opportunity  which  the  Christian  would 
have  of  winning  the  heathen  party  to  Christ,  the  apostle 
replies  that  such  a  result  is  not  at  all  certain  (v.  16).  His 
view  seems  to  be  that  obvious  present  interests,  rather  than 
mere  possibilities,  must  govern  action  in  such  matters.  It 
seems  clear  that  in  such  instances  the  apostle  would  not 
regard  the  Christian  party  as  at  liberty  to  marry  again. 
It  is  rather  a  separation  in  the  interests  of  peace  than  a 
divorce  in  the  proper  sense  of  which  Paul  is  speaking. 
Against  the  idea  of  remarriage  would  be  Paul's  counsel 
that  Christians  should  not  enter  into  new  relations  in  view 
of  the  near  parousia  (y.  20),  and,  especially,  the  principle 
that  only  death  really  dissolves  the  marriage-bond  (^v.  39). 
Incidentally  Paul  makes  frequent  reference  to  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  He  frequently  exhorts  masters  and  slaves 
to  perform  their  respective  duties  to  each  other  (Col.  iii. 
22-iv.  1;  Eph.  vi.  5-9);  and  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  is 
an  appeal  to  the  owner  of  a  runaway  slave,  Onesimus, 
urging  a  kind  reception  of  him,  on  the  ground  that  he 
has  become  a  Christian  and  will  make  all  possible  resti- 
tution. Paul's  churches  were  largely  composed  of  slaves. 
With  the  institution  of  slavery  he  had  always  been  familiar. 
He  assumed  it  as  a  part  of  the  order  of  society.  He  made 
no  protest  against  it.  It  is  wholly  improbable  that  the 
thought  of  its  abolition  ever  occurred  to  him.  Questions 
of  social  transformation  could  hardly  arise  in  a  mind  which 
was  so  preoccupied,  as  was  Paul's,  with  the  idea  that  the 
course  of  history  was  soon  to  be  terminated.  His  maxim 
was  :  Let  each  man  remain  in  that  state  or  relation  in  which 
he  was  when  converted  (1  Cor.  vii.  20).  This  principle 
he  applies  to  slaves.  If  one  is  a  bondservant,  let  not  that 
trouble  him  ;  let  him  not  seek  freedom,  but  rather  use  his 
position  as  a  slave  for  the  Lord's  service,  knowing  that 
spiritually  he  is  Christ's  freeman  (vv.  21,  22).  Outward 
condition  is  of  small  account,  in  view  of  the  approaching 


SOCIAL   MOKALITY  451 

end.  "  Let  each  man,  wherein  he  is  called,  therein  abide 
with  God"  (v.  24). 

It  is  quite  unwarranted  to  suppose  that  Paul  refrained 
from  disapi^roving  of  slavery  from  considerations  of  expe- 
diency. It  is  equally  incorrect  to  say  that  he  attempted 
any  theoretic  justification  of  it.  There  is  no  reason  to 
think  that  the  question  of  its  abstract  rightfulness  or 
wrongfulness  was  before  his  mind  at  all.  He  certainly 
could  not  have  considered  it  as  wrong  per  se;  for  in  that 
case  he  could  not  have  recognized  it  without  protest,  as  he 
did  by  giving  directions  for  its  regulation.  We  must  con- 
clude, I  think,  that  Paul  assumed  that  it  was  legitimate 
for  one  man  to  own  another.  He  has  presented  no  objec- 
tion to  such  ownership.  What  he  aimed  at  was  to  secure 
the  just  and  humane  treatment  of  bondmen.  He  sought 
to  arouse  in  those  to  whom  he  wrote  the  sentiment  of 
human  and  Christian  brotherhood.  Especially  in  writing  to 
Philemon  did  he  insist  that  the  converted  slave  was  "  more 
than  a  slave,  a  brother  beloved  "  (v.  16),  Avhose  fellowship 
and  friendship  Philemon  should  have  forever  (y.  15).  Such 
sentiments  as  these  were  certain  to  place  the  relation  of 
master  and  slave  upon  quite  a  different  plane  from  that 
on  which  it  rested  in  antiquity.  So  far  as  such  ideas  pre- 
vailed, they  were  certain  to  abolish  the  abuses  of  slavery; 
and  the  destruction  of  its  abuses  would  go  a  long  way 
towards  the  ultimate  destruction  of  the  institution.  At 
the  destruction  of  the  institution,  however,  Paul  did  not 
consciously  aim.  But  by  treating  the  relations  involved 
in  the  light  of  the  principles  of  Christian  love  and  brother- 
hood, he  aided  to  set  forces  at  work  which  have,  as  matter 
of  fact,  accomplished  the  abolition  of  slavery  on  almost  a 
world-wide  scale.  Paul  did  not  define  to  himself  such 
a  task,  or  even  such  a  possibility,  as  belonging  to  the 
mission  of  Christianity  in  history ;  but  he  did  clearly  ajD- 
prehend  the  moral  principles  which  have,  in  fact,  accom- 
plished this  result  wherever  Christianity  holds  sway,  and 
which,  we  can  now  see,  must  logically  conduce  to  it  when- 
ever they  become  lodged  in  the  heart  of  society. 

With  respect  to  the  state  Paul  took  up  an  attitude 


452  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    PAUL 

different  alike  from  that  which  was  common  among  the 
Jews,  and  from  that  towards  which  his  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tian liberty  might  seem  to  tend.  To  the  Jewish  mind 
the  Roman  Empire  was  the  embodiment  of  cruelty  and 
oppression,  and  its  overthrow  was  the  fond  dream  of 
every  Jewish  heart.  Paul  does  not  discuss  the  character 
of  the  Roman  power  as  such.  He  contents  himself  with 
urging  the  general  principle  that  the  state  is  a  divinely 
constituted  order  of  human  society,  and  that  it  is  an  in- 
strument of  God  for  accomplishing  his  ends  among  men 
(Rom.  xiii.  1-7).  The  state  derives  its  authority  from 
God  (v.  1),  and  to  resist  its  power  is  to  resist  God's  ordi- 
nance (y.  2).  It  exists  for  the  good  of  its  people ;  its 
function  is  to  protect  the  law-abiding  and  to  restrain  the 
lawless  ;  hence  it  possesses  the  right  to  punish  (yv.  3,  4). 
In  order  to  carry  out  this  purpose  it  may  exact  tribute 
of  its  citizens.  This  right  gives  rise  to  the  duty  to  pay 
taxes  (yv.  6,  7).  Paul's  maxim:  "Render  tribute  to 
whom  tribute  is  due  ;  custom  to  whom  custom,"  is  prob- 
ably a  reminiscence  of  the  saying  of  Jesus  :  "  Render 
unto  Csesar  the  things  that  are  Csesar's,  and  unto  God 
the  things  that  are  God's"  (Mk.  xii.  17).  The  duty  to 
obey  the  laws  of  the  state  and  to  contribute  to  its  main- 
tenance is  a  duty  to  God,  since  the  state  is  God's  instru- 
ment for  the  regulation  of  society,  and  his  will  is  the 
source  and  original  of  all  legitimate  civil  law  and  author- 
ity among  men.  The  immediate  practical  aim  of  the 
apostle* in  these  verses  probably  was  to  check  any  ten- 
dencies to  antinomianism  which  might  develop  in  the 
Roman  church  or  elsewhere,  through  the  perversion  of 
his  doctrine  of  Christian  freedom.  He  is  not  attempting 
a  political  philosophy.  He  does  not  mention  the  defects 
of  existing  governments  or  express  any  view  respecting 
the  fate  of  the  Roman  Empire  which  he  doubtless  re- 
garded as  nearing  its  end  (2  Thess.  ii.  7).  He  says 
nothing  of  the  limits  of  obedience  or  of  the  right  of  revo- 
lution. It  is  enough  for  him  to  emphasize  those  consid- 
erations Avhich  were  adapted  to  save  his  readers  from  the 
practical  errors  and  perils  to  which  they  were  exposed. 


SOCIAL   MORALITY  453 

The  apostle's  references  to  the  institution  of  private 
property  are  entirely  incidental.  He  insisted  upon  hon- 
est industry  in  order  that  each  man  might  supply  his  own 
needs  (1  Thess.  iv.  11),  and  set  the  example  by  working 
at  his  trade  that  he  might  not  be  a  burden  upon  others 
(1  Thess.  ii.  9  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  13,  14).  He  severely  rebuked 
the  disposition  of  the  Thessalonians  to  abandon  their 
daily  employments  in  their  ardent  hope  for  the  Lord's 
speedy  coming,  and  exhorted  them  in  quietness  to  work 
and  to  eat  their  own  bread  (2  Thess.  iii.  10-13).  The 
apostle  assumes  that  men  have  a  right  to  the  products 
of  their  labor.  His  exhortations  to  liberality  in  giving 
rest  upon  that  assumption  (Gal.  vi.  6  ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  2 ; 
2  Cor.  viii.  14,  etc.).  What  one  gives  is  to  be  given 
voluntarily,  that  is,  by  the  free  relinquishment  of  that 
to  which  he  has  a  right  (2  Cor.  ix.  7)  ;  yet  such  bestow- 
ments  of  one's  possessions  (yirdpxovTo)  for  the  relief  of 
the  needy  is  morally  valueless  unless  done  from  love  (1 
Cor.  xiii.  3).  Paul  thus  assumes  the  right  of  private 
property.  But  in  view  of  the  near  advent  of  the  Lord 
it  is  regarded  by  him  as  relatively  unimportant.  He 
counsels  his  converts  to  be  free  from  concern  about  such 
things,  since  the  present  world-period  is  near  its  end 
(1  Cor.  vii.  31).  For  the  Christian  the  right  of  private 
possession  will  be  held  subject  to  the  motives  of  liber- 
ality (aTrXoT?;?,  2  Cor.  viii.  2  ;  ix.  11,  etc.)  and  equality 
(tVoT?;?,  2  Cor.  viii.  13,  14),  an  equitable  regard  for  the 
needs  of  others.  If,  as  some  critics  have  observed,^  the 
apostle  has  not  dwelt  upon  the  dignity  of  man's  work  as 
such  by  describing  it  as  his  moral  task,  and  as  the  divinely 
appointed  means  of  attaining  his  true  goal  in  life,  it  is  suf- 
ficient to  say  that  such  considerations  scarcely  fell  witliin 
the  sphere  of  his  thought,  the  less  so  as  he  believed  him- 
self to  be  living  in  a  vanishing  Avorld.  To  me  the  wonder 
is  not  that  Paul  did  not  dwell  upon  such  views  of  man's 
daily  tasks,  but  that,  with  his  eschatological  expectations, 
he  still  continued  to  value  human  life  with  its  various 

1  Von  Soden,  Die  Ethik  des  Paulus  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Theol.  u.Kirche, 
2  Jahrg.  2  Heft,  p.  142  ;  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  II.  156,  157. 


J 


454  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

duties  and  relations  so  higlily  as  he  did.  In  many 
others  the  parousia-expectation  developed  a  rank  fanati- 
cism (2  Thess.  ii.  1-3  ;  iii.  6-15).  The  most  disastrous 
consequences  might  easily  follow  from  such  a  view  of 
the  future  as  Paul  entertained,  unless  it  was  accompanied 
by  a  strong  and  healthy  sense  of  the  sacredness  of  human 
life  as  at  present  constituted.  Such  a  sense  of  the  divine- 
ness  of  those  obligations  and  ties  which  constitute  man's 
social  life  was  possessed  by  Paul.  Hence  for  him  human 
society  was  sacred,  however  soon  its  fabric  should  be  dis- 
solved. Its  institutions  —  marriage,  the  state,  the  rights 
of  possession  —  are  of  divine  appointment,  and  must  be 
upheld  and  honored,  however  short  the  time  before  the 
order  to  which  they  belong  shall  pass  away  forever. 

One  of  the  most  perplexing  questions  with  which  the 
apostle  had  occasion  to  deal  was  that  which  arose  in 
connection  with  the  distinction  between  "  clean "  and 
"  unclean  "  meats.  Such  "  cases  of  conscience  "  he  found 
in  the  Roman  and  the  Corinthian  churches.  In  the  for- 
mer there  appear  to  have  been  certain  persons  of  Jewish 
education  who  were  still  affected  by  scruples  as  to  what 
food  might  lawfully  be  eaten.  The  practical  question 
was  whether  those  who  had  no  scruples  on  that  subject 
should  refrain  from  the  use  of  their  liberty  out  of  regard 
to  the  scrupulous.  In  Rom.  xiv.  the  apostle  discusses 
this  question  and  lays  down  the  following  principles  : 
(1)  Such  differences  as  that  between  those  who  freely 
"  eat  all  things  "  and  those  who  will  eat  only  herbs  (y.  2) 
should  be  charitably  tolerated.  Those  who  so  differ 
should  not  harshly  judge  and  condemn  one  another. 
God  has  received  both,  and  the  responsibility  of  each  for 
his  own  action  is  to  God  and  not  to  man  (yv.  3,  4).  Such 
differences  should  not  be  allowed  to  divide  the  Church  and 
to  undermine  Christian  fellowship.  (2)  Christ  is  the  sole 
judge.  Believers  are  not  to  assume  the  right  to  judge 
one  another.  There  may  be  differences  respecting  the 
observance  of  days  and  respecting  liberty  of  personal  con- 
duct. Such  differences  are  not  fundamental.  Let  each 
hold  his  own  conviction  and  pursue  his  own  course  con- 


SOCIAL   MORALITY  455 

scientiously  in  such  matters,  having  regard,  not  to  human 
but  to  divine  judgment  (^vv.  5-12).  (3)  Theoretically,' 
Paul  sides  with  the  strong  minded,  who  refuse  to  believe 
that  any  particular  kind  of  food  is  in  itself  unclean.  But 
since  there  are  some  who  cannot  adopt  this  view,  it  is  the 
dictate  of  Christian  love  to  refrain  from  courses  of  action 
which  create  moral  hindrances  for  such  Christians.  Chris- 
tian liberty  should  not  be  so  used  as  to  injure  the  con- 
sciences of  the  scrupulous  Qvv.  13-15).  (4)  The  Kingdom  v/ 
of  God  is  righteousness,  peace,  and  joy.  Let  these  ends 
be  supreme.  Love  is  the  law  of  the  Christian  life,  and 
love  may  require  concessions  in  conduct  in  such  cases,  so 
that  the  scrupulous  may  not  be  led  by  the  example  of  the 
"  strong  "  to  do  what  their  consciences  cannot  yet  clearly 
approve  (yv.  16-21). 

But  it  was  at  Corinth  where  this  question  of  the  rights 
of  Christian  liberty  took  on  its  most  perplexing  form. 
Some  of  the  newly  made  converts,  fresh  from  heathenism, 
could  not  wholly  cease  to  regard  the  gods  whom  they  had 
formerly  worshipped  as  real  beings.  Hence  they  con- 
tinued to  conceive  of  the  meat  of  animals  which  had  been 
killed  at  idol-sacrifices  as  defiled  by  contact  with  powers 
which  were  now  regarded  as  evil.  Such  meat  was  some- 
times offered  for  sale  in  the  shops,  and  might  unwittingly 
be  bought  and  eaten.  Was  the  Christian  at  liberty  to  eat 
of  such  meat  ?  Many  thought  not ;  others  had  no  hesita- 
tion. The  former  class  Paul  calls  the  "  weak  brethren  " 
(1  Cor.  viii.  10, 12),  that  is,  the  scrupulous,  the  perplexed, 
those  who  were  not  clear  in  their  consciences  as  to  what 
they  might  safely  do  in  such  matters  ;  the  latter  class 
were  the  "strong,"  those  who,  Mke  Paul,  knew  that  an 
idol  was  nothing  and  could  not  really  defile  meat. 

The  apostle  treats  the  weakness  in  question  as  due  to 
ignorance,  and  the  concessions  to  it  which  he  recommends 
are  based  entirely  upon  benevolence  towards  the  "  weak," 
and  not  at  all  upon  their  rights  to  demand  them.  If  these 
concessions  are  demanded,  they  are  no  longer  due,  since 
then  the  "  weak  brother  "  would  be  no  longer  "  weak,"  but 
"  strong,"  that  is,  positive  and  certain  as  to  the  rightness 


456  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

of  his  course.  But  where  this  hesitation  really  exists 
it  must  be  tenderly  dealt  with,  until,  by  teaching,  the 
weak  may  attain  to  that  knowledge  of  God  in  the  light 
of  which  all  such  conscientious  scruples  as  those  about 
meats  will  fade  away.  But  here  again  love  is  the  guid- 
ing principle.  We  cannot  always  wisely  do  what  we 
know  we  have  a  right  to  do,  since  we  may  thereby  mis- 
lead those  who  are  influenced  by  our  example  (1  Cor. 
viii.  1-3).  Absurd  though  it  is  to  suppose  that  an  idol 
can  defile  meat,  yet  many  still  retain  that  conviction,  and 
the  question  is,  how  they  may  best  be  helped  on  to  a 
better  conception  (y.  7).  Here  the  problem  for  the  strong 
is  not  one  of  absolute  right  and  wrong.  It  is  a  question 
of  Christian  expediency.  If  a  "strong"  man  should  sit 
down  to  meat  in  an  idol's  temple,  he  might  thereby  influ- 
ence a  "  weak  "  man  to  do  the  same,  and  in  so  doing  the 
latter  would  violate  his  conscience  and  suffer  a  moral 
injury,  because  he  would  be  doing  what  he  is  not  clear 
that  he  has  a  right  to  do  (yv.  8-11).  From  such  consid- 
erations the  apostle  deduces  the  maxim  :  "  If  meat  maketh 
my  brother  to  stumble,  I  will  eat  no  flesh  forevermore, 
that  I  make  not  my  brother  to  stumble  "  (y.  13).  In 
order  to  make  the  principle  plainer,  he  supposes  that  both 
"  strong  "  and  "  weak  "  Christians  are  together  at  a  meal 
in  a  private  house.  Meat  of  the  kind  previously  described 
may  be  on  the  table.  Paul  advises  that  no  inquiry  respect- 
ing it  be  raised.  But  suppose  some  "weak  brother  "  knows 
that  it  is  sacrificial  meat  and  calls  your  attention  to  the 
fact.  He  hesitates  to  eat  of  it  from  conscientious  scru- 
ples. Do  not  by  your  example  embolden  him  to  do  so, 
says  the  apostle.  By  so. doing  you  would  encourage  him 
to  do  violence  to  his  conscience  and  so  to  inflict  upon 
himself  a  moral  injury  (1  Cor.  x.  27-33).  Paul's  whole 
philosophy  on  such  questions  is  :  The  interests  of  love 
and  peace  are  primar}^ ;  knowledge  must  be  tempered 
with  benevolence ;  the  rights  of  Christian  liberty  must  be 
held  subordinate  to  the  obligations  of  Christian  charity. 

The  apostle  is  urgent  that  the  duties  which  spring  out 
of  man's  natural  relations  shall  be  conscientiously  ful- 


SOCIAL  MORALITY  457 

filled.  Wives  are  to  be  in  subjection  to  their  husbands ; 
husbands  are  to  love  their  wives  (Eph.  v.  22-33 ;  Col.  iii. 
18,  19).  Children  must  obey  their  parents,  and  parents 
are  to  beware  of  provoking  their  children  to  wrath  (EjDh. 
vi.  1-3 ;  Col.  iii.  20,  21),  that  is,  of  needlessly  irritating 
them  and  fostering  in  them  angry  passions.  Servants 
and  masters  should  remember  their  reciprocal  obliga- 
tions, the  former  rendering  their  service  as  a  Christian 
duty  (Eph.  vi.  5-8;  Col.  iii.  22-25),  the  latter  doing 
that  which  is  "  just  and  equal,"  and  both  classes  should 
know  that  "  their  Master  is  in  heaven,  and  that  there  is 
no  respect  of  persons  with  him"  (Eph.  vi.  9;  Col.  iv.  1). 
All  these  duties  and  relations  the  apostle  distinctly  con- 
nects with  the  religious  life  by  reminding  his  readers  that 
they  are  all  comprehended  within  the  service  to  be  ren- 
dered to  the  common  Lord.  The  family  relations  are 
"in  the  Lord"  (Eph.  v.  22;  vi.  1;  Col.  iii.  18,  20),  and 
the  mutual  duties  of  the  master  and  slave  are  embraced 
within  the  common  oblig.ation  of  both  to  "  serve  the  Lord 
Christ"  (Col.  iii.  24).  The  inequality  of  social  condition 
seemed  to  Paul  of  slight  moment  in  view  of  the  equality 
of  both  before  the  Master  to  whom  they  shall  give  account, 
and  before  whom  there  "  can  be  neither  bond  nor  free  " 
(Gal.  iii.  28).  '  With  equal  energy  does  Paul  insist  upon 
just  and  upright  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  Christian  in 
all  his  relations  with  his  fellow-men.  The  truth  must  be 
spoken  on  the  ground  that  we  live  in  a  plexus  of  common 
rights  and  duties  (Eph.  iv.  25).  Angry  and  revengeful 
passions  are  to  be  repressed  (^vv.  28,  29,  31),  industry 
exemplified  (v.  29),  and  kind,  generous,  and  forgiving 
dispositions  cultivated  (v.  32).  If  the  apostle  has  not 
given  us  a  formal  list  of  virtues  and  duties,  or  a  full  dis- 
cussion of  the  principles  and  grounds  of  moral  obligation, 
it  is  but  fair  to  say  that  such  a  task  lay  quite  outside  his 
purpose  ;  and  that  he  has,  nevertheless,  given  us,  incident- 
ally, the  essential  elements  of  a  system  of  Christian  ethics. 
Nothing  is  more  unfair  than  to  represent  the  apostle  as  so 
engrossed  in  certain  theological  theories  that  he  is  indif- 
ferent to  the  ethical  life.  His  religion  is,  above  all  things, 
the  religion  of  a  good  life. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE   CHURCH 

Paul  speaks  of  Jlie.  Cliui:pli  much  more  frequently  than 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  We  may  find  a  natural  reason 
for  tliis  in  the  fact  that  the  apostle  was  concerned  with 
organizing  his  converts  into  societies  and  with  equipping 
them  for  self-government.  He  does  not  lose  sight  of  the 
greater  idea  of  Jesus  —  the  Kingdom  of  God ;  but  his 
special  mission  is  to  promote  the  reign  of  God  by  making 
converts  and  organizing  churches.  He  knows  of  a  King- 
dom of  God  which  is  "  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy 
in  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Rom.  xiv.  17),  that  is,  a  reign  of 
heavenly  truth  and  law  in  the  heart  such  as  Jesus  had 
described  in  his  beatitudes.  But  for  Paul's  mind,  the 
phrase  Kingdom  of  God  pointed  mainly  to  the  future. 
It  is  a  state  which  will  be  completely  realized  only  at 
the  parousia.  Then  Christians  will  "inherit  the  King- 
dom of  God  "  (1  Cor.  XV.  50  ;  Gal.  v.  21).  This  eschato- 
logical  sense  is  the  prevalent  one  in  Paul's  use  of  the  title  ; 
we  must,  therefore,  seek  for  his  views  respecting  Christian 
society  in  connection  with  other  terms.  Of  these  the  word 
"  church  "  (ifCK\r)(TLa^^  which  occurs  more  than  sixty  times 
in  his  epistles,  is  the  most  prominent. 

Thejerm  " church "  sometimes  denotes  a  local  organiza- 
tion of  Christian  believers,  as  "the  church  which  is  at 
Corinth"  (1  Cor.  i.  2),  "the  church  of  the  Thessalo- 
nians  "  (1  Thess.  i.  1).  It  may  be  applied  to  a  portion  of 
the  Christians  in  any  city  who  assemble  in  a  private  house 
for  worship,  "  the  church  that  is  in  the  house  "  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  9  ;  Rom.  xvi.  5  ;  Col.  iv.  15).  But  the  term  has 
also  a  wider  meaning  and  denotes  the  whole  body  of  be- 
lievers (1  Cor.  xii.  28 ;    xv.  9 ;    Gal.  i.  13).      This  two- 

458 


THE   CHURCH  459 

fold  meaning  of  the  term  —  the  local  and  the  general  — 
we  shall  consider  in  order. 

Respecting  the  organization  of  the  churches  of  Paul's 
time,  the  prevalent  view  has  been  that  there  were  in 
them,  when  they  were  regularly  organized,  two  well-de- 
fined offices  :  that  of  bishops  or  presbyters,  and  that  of 
deacons.  The  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  to  the  Corin- 
thians contain  no  references  to  official  leaders.  From  the 
nature  of  the  disorders  which  existed  in  these  churches, 
and  from  the  fact  that  no  one  is  held  especially  respon- 
sible for  regulating  them,  we  should  naturally  conclude 
that  these  churches  were  not  yet  officered  when  Paul 
wrote  his  letters  to  them.  Where  officers  are  found,  as  at 
Philippi  (Phil.  i.  1),  they  are  bishops  and  deacons.  The 
former  are  generally  supposed  to  have  administered  the 
affairs  of  the  congregation  and  to  have  taught ;  the  latter 
to  have  had  charge  of  the  alms.  Bishops  (eV/fcr/coTroi)  and 
presbyters,  or  elders  {irpea-^vrepoi),  are  regarded,  on  this 
theor}^,  as  synonyms,  the  former  being  of  Greek,  the  latter 
of  Hebrew  origin  and  associations.  This  view  has  been 
defended  with  great  abilit}^  and  learning  by  Bishop  Light- 
foot^  and  by  Dr.  Hatch,^  who  considers  the  identity  of 
bishop  and  presbyter  practically  certain.^  This  theory 
has  been  assailed,  within  recent  years,  on  every  side.  I 
can  only  express  my  conviction  that  it  has  not  been  dis- 
proved, and  that  no  other  theory  accords  so  well  with  the 
facts  which  are  known  to  us.  The  investigation  of  the 
subject  does  not  belong  to  the  Pauline  theolog3\* 

^  In  his  essay  on  the  Christian  Ministry  in  his  Commentary  on  Philip- 
pians. 

2  In  his  Bampton  Lectures  on  The  Organization  of  the  Early  Christian 
Church,  1882. 

3  Op.  cit.,  p.  39. 

4  Brief  reference  should,  however,  be  made  to  the  principal  recent  theo- 
ries. Dr.  Hort  (The  Christian  Ecdesia)  holds  that  the  word  ''  bishop  "  or 
"overseer"  (eTrtV/coTros)  was  not  the  designation  of  an  office,  but  of  2,  func- 
tion. The  elder  (tt pea ^vt epos)  is  the  officer,  and  oversight  (eirccrKOTreTv)  is 
his  function.  In  this  view  bishops  and  elders  were  the  same  persons ; 
the  bishop  was  not  a  higher  officer  than  the  presbyter.  Indeed  as  bishop 
he  was  not  an  officer  at  all.  Dr.  Allen  (Christian  Institutions)  holds 
that  both  bishop  and  presbyter  primarily  designate  functions.     He  thinks 


460  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

The  apostle  gives  no  detailed  directions  regarding  the 
regulation  of  the  affairs  of  the  local  assembly.  He  in- 
veighs against  the  toleration  of  social  immorality  in  the 
Church,  and  urges  the  importance  of  reverence  and  deco- 
rous conduct  in  the  congregation,  especially  in  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Lord's  supper  (1  Cor.  xi.).£T?he  apostle 
was  particularly  anxious  that  his  churches  should  not 
expose  themselves  to  criticism  by  such  applications  of 
the  principle  of  liberty  as  would  offend  the  ideas  which 
were  current  in  antiquity  regarding  the  place  and  func- 
tion of  woman.  /  The  sexes  are  on  a  plane  of  equality  in 
Christ  upon  whom  both  are  alike  dependent ;  in  Christ 
"there  can  be  no  male  and  female"  (Gal.  iii.  28).  The 
wife  is  to  be  loved  as  Christ  loved  the  Church  (Eph.  v.  25). 
Even  in  natural  relations  Paul  does  not  forget  that  the 
sexes  are  mutually  dependent  (1  Cor.  xi.  11,  12).  But 
in  spite  of  these  facts,  he  places  woman  in  a  position  of 
natural  and  social  dependence  u23on  man  (Eph.  v.  23; 
1  Cor.  xi.  3).  This  view  he  carries  over  into  his  regula- 
tion of  the  Christian  congregation.  The  woman  is  to  be 
veiled  in  the  public  assembly  as  a  sign  of  her  dependence 
(1  Cor.  xi.  5).  She  should  wear  her  hair  long  because 
nature  has  given  it  to  her  as  a  kind  of  veil  (xi.  15).  To 
Paul's  mind  these  proprieties  are  based  upon  the  divine 
order  of  creation  (Gen.  ii.  18-20),  since  man  was  created 
by  God  immediately,  and  woman  mediately,  from  man. 
In  1  Tim.  ii.  14  the  dependence  of  woman  is  deduced 
from  the  circumstance  that  she  first  yielded  to  tempta- 
tion. In  view  of  this  secondary  position  of  woman,  she 
must  not  speak  or  teach  in  the  public  assembly  (1  Cor. 
xiv.  34  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  12),  not  even  to  the  extent  of  asking 

bishops  were  presbyters  who  exercised  certain  special  prerogatives.  Dr. 
McGiffert  {The  Apostolic  Age)  and  Dr.  Vincent  {Commentary  on  Philip- 
pians)  reverse  the  view  of  Hort  and  hold  that  presbyters  in  the  apostolic 
Church  were  not  Church  officers  ;  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  an  offi- 
cial eldership  in  the  early  Church.  The  elders  were  simply  the  older  and 
more  experienced  Christians.  From  this  class  the  bishops  were  commonly 
chosen,  so  that  "to  appoint  elders"  (Acts  xiv.  23;  Tit.  i.  5)  means  to 
elevate  some  of  the  more  mature  Christians  to  the  office  of  bishop.  This 
interpretation  seems  to  me  quite  unnatural. 


THE   CHimCH  461 

questions.  If  she  wishes  instruction  upon  the  subject 
under  consideration  in  the  assembly,  she  should  ask  her 
husband  at  home  (1  Cor.  xiv.  35).  Some  have  held  that 
the  apostle's  prohibition  of  women  from  praying^  or  proph- 
esying in  public  without  a  veil  (1  Cor.  xi.  5,  13)  implies 
that  they  might  properly  do  so  if  veiled.  But  this  sup- 
position involves  an  explicit  contradiction  between  1  Cor. 
xi.  5,  13  and  1  Cor.  xiv.  34,  35.  Moreover,  we  observe 
that  in  the  former  passages  Paul  says  nothing  of  how 
women  may,  luith  propriety^  speak  in  public,  but  is  merely 
denouncing  the  obvious  impropriety  of  speaking  without 
the  veil.  It  is  quite  certain,  as  appears  later  when  Paul 
takes  up  the  subject  of  women's  speaking  in  general,  that 
for  his  mind  the  requirement  to  appear  in  the  assembly 
only  with  veiled  head  would  preclude,  by  its  very  signifi- 
cance, the  public  speaking  in  question.  These  views  are 
due  in  part  to  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  narratives  of 
the  creation  and  the  fall  in  Genesis,  and  in  part  to  the 
idea  of  woman's  relation  to  man  which  was  common  in 
Paul's  age.  / 

The  ordinances  of  the  apostolic  Church  were  baptism! 
and  the  Lord's  supper.     The  former  symbolized  the  be-| 
stowment  of  the  divine  grace  through  union  with  Christ ;  I 
tlie  latter  was  the  memorial  of  his  sacrificird  death  and  the 
sign  and  pledge  of  the  believer's  participation  in  his  life. 
Baptism  is  "into  the  name  of  Christ"  (^ef.  1  Cor.  i.  13- 
16)  or  "into  Christ"   (Rom.  vi.  3).^     It  is  a  symbol  ot 
union  with  Christ.     Paul  calls  it  baptism  into  death  and 
into  Christ's  death,  and  explains  his  meaning  by  speaking 
of  the  baptized  as  united  with  the  likeness  of   Christ's 
death  and  resurrection  (Rom.  vi.  5).     It  is  not  baptism 
considered  as  an  outward  rite,   but  baptism   considered 
in  its  inner  import,  which  portrays  this  ingrafting  into 

1  In  1  Cor.  XV.  20,  30  Paul  alludes  to  a  custom  of  baptizing  the  living 
in  behalf  of  {v-rr^p)  persons  who  had  died  without  baptism.  He  gives  no 
explicit  sanction  to  this  custom,  although  the  use  which  he  makes  of  it  in 
his  argument  seems  to  show  that  he  felt  no  objection  to  it.  We  can  only- 
conjecture  tlie  motive  of  this  vicarious  baptism.  Dr.  McGiffert,  Apostolic 
Age.,  p.  272,  suggests  that  it  was  meant  to  express  the  idea  that  those  who 
had  died  without  baptism  had  died  with  Christ  and  would  rise  with  him. 


462  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

Christ.  His  point  is  that  baptism  commits  one  to  a  holy 
life.  It  betokens  a  moral  renewal  —  a  death  to  sin  and 
a  life  to  holiness.  The  baptized  should  regard  himself, 
as  it  were,  as  buried  out  of  sight  of  the  sinful  world,  and 
as  risen  with  Christ  into  the  world  of  the  sj^irit.  This 
moral  import  of  baptism  Paul  figuratively  represents  as 
a  dying,  burial,  and  resurrection  with  Christ,  because,  as 
we  have  seen,  these  are  Christ's  suf)reme  saving  deeds. 
It  is  sometimes  said  that  Paul  considers  the  form  of 
baptism  as  a  picture  of  Christ's  death,  burial,  and  res- 
urrection. This  view  is  not  warranted  by  his  language, 
and,  indeed,  misconceives  his  point  in  Rom.  vi.  1-7. 
Baptism  is  a  symbol  of  moral  renewal  which  is  figura- 
tively represented  as  a  dying  to  sin  and  a  rising  to  holi- 
ness; or,  in  a  mystical  manner,  as  a  dying  with  Christ 
on  his  cross  and  a  rising  with  him  from  the  grave.  The 
characteristic  thing  in  Paul's  thought  here  is  the  cessa- 
tion from  the  sinful  life,  which  he  calls  dying  with  Christ, 
and  the  realization  of  the  holy  life  which  he  calls  rising 
with  Christ.  With  these  he  starts  out  in  his  reply  to  the 
supposed  objection  to  his  doctrine  (Rom.  vi.  1,  2).  Then 
baptism  as  fitly  symbolizing  such  a  death  and  burial  occurs 
to  him.  He  never  speaks  of  baptism  as  a  symbol  of  the 
historic  facts  of  Christ's  death,  burial,  and  resurrection. 

We  are  repeatedly  reminded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
that  the  early  Church  was  largely  built  up  by  the  accession 
of  households  (xi.  14;  xvi.  31;  xviii.  8).  These  came  into 
the  Church  from  without.  But  in  due  time  the  Christian 
family  Avould  develop  within  the  Church.  It  would  be  a 
matter  of  great  interest  if  we  possessed  the  means  of  clearly 
tracing  the  process  by  which  the  comparative  individual- 
ism of  the  first  days  gradually  gave  way  to  a  recognition 
of  the  saving  significance  of  Christian  family  life  and  of 
the  social  operation  of  the  divine  grace.  Did  Paul  in  any 
way  take  account  of  this  ?  Are  his  principles  favorable  or 
unfavorable  to  a  ritualistic  recognition  of  it  by  the  Church? 
He  speaks,  as  the  Book  of  Acts  does  (xvi.  15,  33,  34),  of 
the  baptism  of  households  (1  Cor.  i.  16).  But,  of  course, 
it  cannot  be  proved  that  they  contained  young  children. 


THE  CHURCH  463 

In  1  Cor.  vii.  14  the  children  of  Christian  parents  are 
termed  "holy"  {dyed).  This  can  hardly  mean  less  than 
that  they  stand  in  a  s^^ecial  relation  to  the  grace  of  God 
which  is  mediated  through  a  Christian  inheritance  and  a 
Christian  nurture.  It  is  very  doubtful,  however,  if  the 
baptism  of  such  children  was  thought  of  by  Paul,  since  he 
also  says  that  the  unbelieving  partner  in  the  marriage 
relation  is  rendered  holy  (^rjylaa-rat,  vii.  14)  by  the  believ- 
ing one.  He  is  thinking  of  the  organic  life  of  the  family 
as  a  means  for  the  transmission  of  spiritual  blessing.  The 
Christian  wife  may  be  the  medium  of  the  divine  grace  to 
the  un-Christian  husband,  and  vice  versa.  If  even  one 
parent  is  Christian,  the  child  will  be  born  within  the 
"household  of  faith"  (Gal.  vi.  10)  and  will  be  the  pre- 
sumptive inheritor  of  a  Christian  environment  and  train- 
ing. Whether  these  and  similar  considerations  which 
emerge  in  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  and 
bear  upon  the  significance  and  function  of  the  family 
in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  are  a  sufficient  warrant  for  the 
early  and  widespread  practice  of  household  baptism  is  a 
question  which  carries  us  over  into  the  field  of  doctrinal 
theology  and  is  not  pertinent  to  our  present  investigation. 
Paul  has  preserved  to  us,  in  1  Cor.  xi.  23-25,  the 
earliest  narrative  of  the  establishment  of  the  Lord's 
supper  which  we  possess.  It  is  as  follows  :  "  For  I  re- 
ceived of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you, 
how  that  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  night  in  which  he  was 
betrayed  took  bread  ;  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he 
brake  it,  and  said.  This  is  my  body,  which  is  for  you :  this 
do  in  remembrance  of  me.  In  like  manner  also  the  cup, 
after  supper,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my 
blood:  this  do,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of 
me."  That  the  bread  and  wine  were  regarded,  both  by 
our  Lord  and  by  Paul,  as  symbols  is  evident,  not  only 
because  Jesus  was  bodily  present  with  his  disciples  when 
he  spoke  the  words  of  institution,  but  because  it  is  impos- 
sible to  take  the  words:  "This  cup  is  the  new  covenant" 
literally,  as  the  words :  "  This  is  my  body  "  have  been  so 
extensively  taken.     There  can  be  no  doubt  that  for  Paul 


\ 


V 


464  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

the  supper  Avas  a  perpetual  memorial  of  the  Lord's  sacri- 
ficial death.  It  is  a  visible  witness  to  the  believer  of  the 
saving  grace  of  God  bestowed  in  Christ's  death.  But  we 
have  seen  that,  to  Paul's  mind,  this  death  does  not  simply 
affect  man's  life  externally  and  legally.  There  is  a  "  fel- 
lowship of  his  sufferings"  by  becoming  conformed  unto 
his  death  (Phil.  iii.  10),  in  which  the  believer  is  to  partici- 
pate. Hence  the  supper  does  not  merely  denote  some- 
thing wrought  for  us^  but  also  something  wrought  in  us. 
He  calls  it  KOLvcovta  ;  "The  cup  of ^Wessing^^  communion 
or  participation  in  the  blood  of  Christ"  (1  Cor.  x.  16). 
Spiritual  fellowship  with  Christ,  entrance  into  his  life,  is, 
for  the  apostle,  an  essential  element  in  the  meaning  of  the 
supper.  Hence  it  symbolizes  the  spiritual  unity  of  all 
believers  in  Christ  :  "  Because  there  is  one  bread,  we,  the 
many,  are  one  body ;  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread" 
(1  Cor.  X.  17).  All  Christians  are  one  because  they  draw 
their  life  from  a  common  source.  They  are  bound  together 
because  they  are  bound  to  Christ. 

Recurring  now  to  Paul's  use  of  the  word  "  church  "  in 
its  wider  sense,  we  observe  that  it  is  a  name  for  the  jotal 
aompany  of  all  believers  on  earth.  At  the  parousia  the 
present  world-period  (atW  ovto^^  Gal.  i.  4  j  1  Cor.  iii.  18) 
will  terminate  and  the  Messianic  age  (alcov  fjLeWcov^  Eph. 
i.  21)  will  begin.  To  the  former  age  belongs  the  Church ; 
to  the  latter,  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  Church  is  the 
partial  realization  of  Christian  society  here  on  earth  — 
ideally  perfect,  indeed,  but  never  really  so.  The  Kingdom 
will  be  the  perfected  society  in  the  life  to  come. 

In  Paul's  view  the  Church  is  one.  It  is  made  up  of 
many  local  assemblies,  people  of  many  lands,  speaking 
diverse  languages.  There  are  differences  of  opinion  and 
of  practice,  but  it  never  occurred  to  Paul  that  these  differ- 
ences constituted  a  basis  of  division.  The  common  sal- 
vation and  lordship  of  Christ  bind  all  believers  together 
into  one  fellowship.  "  Is  Christ  divided  ?  "  (1  Cor.  i.  13) 
he  exclaims  when  the  Christians  of  Corinth  began  to  draw 
apart  in  consequence  of  their  preferences  for  different 
Christian  teachers.     Paul's  favorite  figure  for  expressing 


THE  CHURCH  465 

the  unity  of  the  Church  is  that  of  the  body,  which  is  an 
organic  unity,  though  composed  of  many  and  diverse 
parts :  "  We,  who  are  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and 
severally  members  one  of  another"  (Rom.  xii.  5);  "For 
as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the 
members  of  the  body,  being  many,  are  one  body ;  so  also 
is  Christ"  (1  Cor.  xii.  12).  Christ  is  the  bond  which 
unites  all  the  members  of  the  Church  into  one.  Each  is 
a  member  of  his  body,  and  no  one  can  cast  the  other  out. 
"  The  eye  cannot  say  to  the  hand,  I  have  no  need  of  thee : 
or  again  the  head  to  the  feet,  I  have  no  need  of  you  " 
(1  Cor.  xii.  21).  If  the  parts  of  the  body  could  thus 
separate  themselves  off  one  from  another,  there  would 
soon  be,  as  Paul  says,  no  hody  left.  But  this  cannot  be. 
So  long  as  there  is  a  body  of  Christ  at  all,  it  must  be  one. 
The  Church  is  one  in  spite  of  itself.  All  who  are  joined 
to  Christ  rightfully  belong  to  it,  and  no  one  can  really 
cast  him  out,  for  Christ  hath  received  him  (Rom.  xiv.  3 ; 
XV.  7).  Some  may  "eat  all  things"  without  scruple; 
others  may  "eat  herbs"  (xiv.  2).  Such  differences  do  not 
divide  the  body  of  Christ.  The  Church  is  one  in  Christ, 
and  it  cannot  divide  itself,  any  more  than  it  can  divide 
Christ.  It  may  try  to  divide  itself,  but  its  division  is 
only  in  outward  seeming ;  it  is  a  human  pretence  and  not 
a  reality.  On  Paul's  principles,  what  we  call  "  the  holy 
Catholic  Church  —  the  communion  of  saints"  on  earth  —  is 
one  as  Christ  is  one,  and  no  human  power  can  destroy 
that  indivisible  unity.  In  Ephesians  this  thought  receives 
a  magnificent  development  where  the  apostle  depicts  Christ 
as  the  unifying  bond  of  all  saving  powers  and  processes. 
It  is  the  purpose  of  God  to  unite  all  things  under  the 
headship  of  Christ  and  in  union  with  him,  to  put  all 
things  under  his  feet,  and  to  make  him  head  over  all 
things  to  the  Church,  which  is  his  body  (Eph.  i.  10,  22). 
Here  we  note  an  expansion  of  the  idea  of  the  Church 
so  that  it  approximates  the  conception  of  the  "  Church 
triumphant."  The  attainment  of  the  ultimate  goal  of 
redemption  is  comprehended  in  Christ's  function  as  head 
of  the  Church.  Here  "the  Church"  virtually  coincides 
2h 


466  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

with  "  the  Kingdom  of  God "  as  used  in  the  earlier 
epistles. 

As  the  figure  of  the  body  is  Paul's  favorite  representa- 
tion of  the  unity  of  the  Church,  so  that  of  a  temple,  or 
other  building,  is  that  by  which  he  sets  forth  its  symmetry 
and  sanctity.  The  Church  is  a  spiritual  sanctuary  (^vao^;'), 
whose  defilement  by  jealousy  and  strife  is  sacrilege  (1  Cor. 
iii.  16,  17).  The  Christian  who  is  a  part  of  this  temple 
must  have  no  association  with  idol-shrines,  for  "what 
agreement  hath  a  temple  of  God  with  idols  ?  "  (2  Cor. 
vi.  16).  The  apostle  uses  this  idea  of  the  sacredness  of  the 
Church  to  emphasize  the  sin  of  conformity,  on  the  part  of 
believers,  to  heathen  customs  and  of  marriage  with  unbe- 
lievers (2  Cor.  vi.  14,  15).  In  Ephesians  Paul  uses  the 
same  figure  to  picture  the  process  of  redemption  and  the 
goal  which  it  contemplates.  Believers  are  built  up  into  a 
spiritual  house  "on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner- 
stone." Each  part  of  this  spiritual  building  is  so  ad- 
justed to  its  own  place  and  use  that  the  whole  rises  into 
a  temple  hallowed  by  the  presence  of  the  Lord  —  a  sanct- 
uary in  which  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  (ii.  21,  22).  An- 
other figure  for  the  Church  is  that  of  a  tilled  field  (^9eov 
yecopyLov^  1  Cor.  iii.  9)  —  a  figure  which  is  especially 
adapted  to  suggest  that  each  member  has  his  own  work, 
for  example,  that  of  tilling  or  of  irrigating,  and  that  he 
should  do  this  without  disparagement  or  jealousy  of  oth- 
ers. In  any  case  the  laborers  are  but  the  instruments  of 
God  in  accomplishing  his  work ;  they  are  God's  "  fellow- 
workers."  "But  God  giveth  the  increase"  (1  Cor.  iii. 
6-9).  He  is  the  efficient  cause  of  all  growth  and  prog- 
ress. Hence  the  laborers  in  his  field  should  respect  one 
another  as  all  alike  are  his  husbandmen.  Each  should 
regard  his  work  as  supplementing  that  of  others.  The 
toil  of  all  should  cooperate  to  a  common  end. 

The  Church  in  this  general  sense  in  which  we  are  now 
speaking  of  it  was  not  formally  organized  into  an  outward 
unity  in  the  apostolic  age.  The  local  congregations  which 
composed  the  Church  at  large  were,  in  most  cases,  far 


THE   CHUKCH  467 

apart.  They  were  scattered  over  an  immense  range  of 
territory  stretching  from  Jerusalem  to  Rome.  The  unity 
among  these  Avidely  separated  congregations  was  spiritual. 
They  shared  a  common  truth  and  a  common  life.  They 
all  partook  of  the  same  spiritual  food,  and  drank  the  same 
spiritual  drink,  and  the  common  source  of  supply  for  them 
all  was  known  to  be  Christ  (1  Cor.  x.  3,  4).  A  common 
participation  in  God's  spiritual  benefits  made  the  Church 
of  Paul's  day  and  that  of  the  Old  Testament  times  one : 
the  little  companies  of  Christians,  dispersed  over  a  large 
part  of  the  Roman  world,  were  similarly  bound  together, 
but  by  a  more  definite  and  tangible  bond  of  union.  There 
was  no  central  government  which  extended  over  them  all, 
no  officers  who  possessed  authority  over  them  all,  or  even 
over  all  those  comprised  within  a  given  district.  What- 
ever the  functions  of  bishops  and  elders,  —  whether  they 
denote  the  same  persons  or  not,  —  the  sphere  of  their  offi- 
cial activity  was  local. 

But  was  each  local  church,  then,  left  entirely  alone  to 
take  care  of  itself?  Not  wholly  so.  The  apostle  Paul, 
for  example,  was  a  kind  of  overseer  to  all  the  Gentile 
churches.  He  concerned  himself  for  their  welfare ;  he 
wrote  them  letters,  even  if  he  had  not  personally  founded 
them,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Roman  and  the  Colossian 
churches ;  he  visited  them  when  he  was  able.  Through 
him  one  Church  learned  about  the  progress  and  devotion 
of  others.  Mutual  interest  was  fostered.  The  apostle 
was  a  kind  of  medium  of  communication  and  bond  of  con- 
nection between  these  widely  scattered  churches.  No 
doubt  other  apostles  performed,  on  a  smaller  scale,  the 
same  office.  Such  oversight  would  be  sure,  as  occasion 
demanded,  to  grow  into  a  more  definite  supervision,  as  in 
the  work  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus  and  of  Titus  among 
the  churches  in  Crete. 

There  were  other  Christian  preachers  and  teachers  whose 
labors  were  not  always  confined  to  any  one  place.  Besides 
apostles  Paul  speaks  of  "  prophets  and  teachers  "  (1  Cor. 
xii.  28),  and,  again,  of  "  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors,  and 
teachers"  (Eph.  iv.  11).     These  titles  are  introduced  to 


468  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   PAUL 

illustrate  the  variety  of  gifts  which  has  been  bestowed  upon 
the  Church.  They  do  not,  at  any  rate  in  most  cases, 
designate  offices,  but  functions  or  endowments.  Paul  con- 
tinues the  list  thus :  "  then  miracles,  then  gifts  of  healing, 
helps,  governments,  divers  kinds  of  tongues  "  (1  Cor.  xii. 
28).  But  although  the  prophets,  teachers,  and  evangelists 
of  the  early  Church  were  not,  as  such.  Church  officers,  yet 
they,  no  doubt,  served  in  some  degree  to  bring  the  churches 
into  relations  with  each  other  and  to  foster  the  feeling  of 
a  common  life  and  interest.  The  evangelists  at  least  seem 
to  have  travelled  from  place  to  place,  and  would  naturally 
concern  themselves  for  all  the  believers  with  whom  they 
would  come  into  contact.  They  might  be,  at  the  same 
time,  officers  in  some  local  church,  as  was  Philip  "  the  evan- 
gelist"  who  Avas  also  "  one  of  the  seven  "  (Acts  xxi.  8).  The 
labors  of  such  men,  so  far  as  they  were  not  merely  local, 
would  tend  to  foster  a  common  consciousness  and  a  sense 
of  unity  among  the  believers  of  various  localities.  The 
believers  would  thus  be  helped  to  refer  their  differing  gifts 
and  functions  to  the  one  Spirit  and  to  connect  their  various 
duties  with  the  one  Lord. 

In  the  early  Church,  outwardly  considered,  we  seem  to 
see  only  isolation  and  division.  There  was  the  great 
division  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity.  For 
a  time  this  threatened  to  separate  the  Church  into  two 
irreconcilable  factions.  But  this  danger  was  averted 
mainly  through  the  labors  and  arguments  of  Paul,  who 
was  able  to  show  that  the  old  covenant  was  fulfilled  in 
the  new,  that  the  gospel  was  complete  and  sufficient  in 
itself,  and  that  grace  and  faith  are  the  jDrinciples  on  which 
men  always  have  been  and  always  must  be  saved.  Then 
appeared  the  divisions  over  jy^arious  teachers,  over  the 
relation  of  the  believer  to  heathen  praclTcesTover  points  of 
ritual  and  of  etiquette.  Some  of  these  differences  were 
trifling  and  could  be  easily  composed,  but  others  were 
serious  and  far-reaching.  Yet  the  believers  were  held 
together,  largely  by  the  power  of  Paul's  comprehensive 
view  of  Christian  unity.  Many  of  the  grounds  on  which, 
in  subsequent  times,  Christians  have  separated  have  been 


THE   CHURCH  469 

trifling  compared  to  some  of  the  apparent  reasons  for 
division  which  existed  in  Paul's  day.  Yet  he  held  them 
together,  and  he  did  so  because  he  believed,  and  succeeded 
in  making  others  believe,  that  the  Church's  true  unity  is  V 
not_  outward  but  in\vard  ;  that  it  does  not  consist  in 
uniform  "opinions  or  uniform  ritualistic  practice,  but  in 
the  unity  of  the  Spirit.  This  unity  was  what  the  apostle 
labored  to  induce  his  churches  to  keep  (Eph.  iv.  3),  and 
they  kept  it — not,  indeed,  perfectly,  but  sufficiently  to 
prevent  the  believing  community  from  falling  apart  into 
unsympathetic  divisions  over  every  point  of  difference 
that  might  arise.  It»-Si:^.s_res.erved  for  a  later  age, ,  to 
develop  a  conception  of  Church  unity  which  is  widely 
different  from  Paul's,  namely,  that  of  a  leaden  uniformity 
of  opinion  and  practice.  This  conception  has  been  in 
full  operation  for  many  centuries.  It  has  woi'ked  out 
its  results  on  the  largest  scale  in  modern  Protestantism  on 
the  principle  that  the  Church  is  a  means  of  discriminating 
against  those  who  have  defective  opinions,  and  that  men 
who  differ  in  some  theory  or  point  of  ritual  cannot,  of 
course,  belong  to  the  same  Church.  Had  this  principle 
prevailed  in  the  apostolic  age,  the  early  Church  would  have 
been  rent  into  contending  factions.  That  this  principle, 
which  so  readily  allies  itself  with  human  prejudice  and 
selfishness,  was  not  permitted  to  assert  itself  and  to  do 
its  divisive  work  in  the  early  Church,  must  be  credited,  I 
think,  in  great  measure  to  the  splendid  advocacy,  by  the 
apostle  Paul,  of  a  truer  and  more  Christian  view.^ 

1  ' '  The  one  real  sin  against  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  the  spirit  which 
would  exclude  from  its  fellowship  any  who  confess  Christ  as  Head  and 
own  the  common  brotherhood  in  him."  D.  W.  Forrest,  Tlie  Christ  of 
History  and  of  Experience,  p.  287. 


CHAPTER  XII 

ESCHATOLOGY 

The  conceptions  of  the  apostle  which  fall  under  this 
head  are  chiefly  developed  in  connection  with  his  descrip- 
tions of  the  Christian's  hope  of  a  life  beyond  this.  The 
^,  Lord's  siicond^cpnimg  and  the,  resurrection  are  the  most 
*-  prominent  themes  of  Paul's  eschatology.  His  arguments 
on  both  these  subjects  are  directed  towards  the  strengthen- 
ing of  the  believer's  faith  and  hopey  To  the  Lord's  parousia 
the  apostle,  with  the  whole  apostolic  Church,  looked  for- 
ward as  the  great  day  of  deliverance  and  triumph,  when 
Christ  should  destroy  his  enemies  by  the  brightness  of  his 
coming  (2  Thess.  ii.  8).  He  dwelt  upon  the  resurrection 
in  order  to  remove  the  difficulties  and  objections  which 
were  felt  by  the  Greek  mind  with  regard  to  it,  and  to 
assure  the  Corinthian  believers  that  there  would  be  pro- 
vided, even  in  the  spiritual  world,  a  suitable  embodiment 
for  the  spirit  (1  Cor.  xv.  12  sq.).  The  references  by  Paul 
to  other  eschatological  themes  than  these  are  rather  inci- 
dental. 
f  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  apostle 
^expected  the  personal,  visible  return  of  Christ  to  occur 
\in  the  near  future.  In  1  Thessalonians  he  expresses 
himself  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  he  hoped  to  be 
living  at  the  parousia.  In  his  preaching  Paul  had  empha- 
sized the  hope  of  Christ's  speedy  coming  (v.  2).  When 
some  of  the  members  of  the  church  died,  the  question 
naturally  arose :  How  should  those  who  had  died  stand 
related  to  the  Lord's  advent  ?  Would  not  they  be  at  some 
disadvantage  as  compared  with  the  living,  who  would  be 
ready  and  waiting  to  enter  at  once  into  the  joys  and  rewards 
of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  ?     To  this  difficulty  the  apostle 

470 


ESCHATOLOGY  471 

addresses  himself  in  1  Thess.  iv.  13-18.  He  assures  his 
readers  '^  by  the  word  of  the  Lord "  —  some  saying  of 
Jesus  which  he  regards  as  covering  the  point — that  those 
who  have  fallen  asleep  in  Jesus  will  be  at  no  disadvan- 
tage. The  certainty  of  resurrection  is  the  guaranty  of 
their  full  and  immediate  participation  in  the  Messianic 
blessedness  at  the  parousia.  At  the  Lord's  coming  "  the 
dead  in  Christ "  shall  at  once  arise  so  as  to  be  ready  to 
join  the  living  in  being  caught  up  into  the  clouds  to  meet 
the  Lord  in  the  air,  hence  to  be  ever  with  the  Lord  (v.  17). 
Paul  evidently  regards  those  members  of  the  Church  who 
had  died  as  forming  in  this  scene  a  minority  as  com^Dared 
with  those  who  should  be  living,  among  whom  he  himself 
expected  to  be.  Twice  he  uses  the  expression  :  '*  We  that 
are  alive  "  (^J/xet?  ol  ^covre^^  vv.  15, 17),  in  contrast  to  those 
who  shall  have  died  before  the  Lord  returns.  The  well- 
known  fact  to  which  the  whole  New  Testament  testifies, 
that  the  apostolic  Church  regarded  the  parousia  as  near 
at  hand,  confirms  this  natural  interpretation  of  the  passage 
in  question. 

Did  the  apostle  abandon  this  expectation  in  later  years? 
It  is  certainly  less  prominent  in  the  later  epistles.  The 
references  to  it  are  less  definite.  Still,  the  Lord's  coming 
is  urged  as  a  motive  to  faithfulness.  The  Corinthians  are 
urged  to  await  the  Lord's  coming  (1  Cor.  i.  7,  8);  to  refrain 
from  judging  "  until  the  Lord  come,  who  will  both  bring 
to  light  the  hidden  things  of  darkness  and  make  manifest 
the  counsels  of  the  hearts"  (iv.  5).  In  his  later  letters 
also  he  refers  to  the  manifestation  of  Christ  in  glory  (Col. 
iii.  4),  and  his  watchword  still  is  :  "The  Lord  is  at  hand" 
(o  Kvpco^  e77u?,  Phil.  iv.  5).  Such  are  the  facts.  The 
natural  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  facts  is  that, 
time  went  on,  the  parousia  ceased  to  be  central  in  Paul 
thought.  The  great  controversies  over  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  drew  his  attention  away  from  that  subject  and 
concentrated  it  upon  other  themes.  Thus  there  took  place 
a  change  of  emphasis  and  of  proportion  in  the  apostle's 
doctrine.  It  is  improbable  that  the  exjDectation  of  per- 
sonally surviving  the  parousia  remained  so  fixed  and  defi- 


Lue 
,  as^ 
ul's  / 


472  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

nite  in  his  mind  as  it  was  in  his  earlier  ministry.  How 
could  this  be  the  case,  when  in  prison  he  faced  the  pros- 
pect of  speedy  martyrdom  ?  He  still  believed  that  in  the 
near  future  the  Lord  would  come  to  consummate  his  King- 
dom and  to  judge  the  world,  but  he  must  have  deemed 
it  less  and  less  likely  that  he  would  still  be  living  when 
that  event  should  occur.  It  would  be  natural  that  the 
expectation  of  the  advent  should  lose  something  of  its 
definiteness  with  the  passing  of  time  and  the  unfolding  of 
events.  Still  we  cannot  affirm,  as  some  have  done,  that 
Paul  changed  his  opinion  respecting  the  nature  or  the 
[nearness  of  the  second  advent.     All  that  can  be  legiti- 

lately  inferred  from  his  language  is  that  his  later  expec- 
:ation  was  less  definite  and  precise,  and  that  the  parousia 

Lad  a  relatively  less  prominent  place  in  his  thoughts  than 
it  had  formerly  occupied. 

This  changed  emphasis  may  be  accounted  for  in  part 
Dy  considerations  which  meet  us  in  the  passage  commonly 
called  "  the  Pauline  Apocalypse,"  2  Thess.  ii.  1-12.  The 
practical  effect  at  Thessalonica  of  the  preaching  of  the 
Lord's  speedy  return  had  been  to  develop  fanaticism. 
Some  had  relinquished  their  employments  and  given 
themselves  up  to  idleness  and  to  indifference  respecting 
the  present  life  (2  Thess.  iii.  11,  12).  The  apostle  must 
have  perceived  the  dangers  attending  a  form  of  expecta- 
tion which  so  easily  led  to  such  results.  In  the  second 
Epistle  he  seeks  to  recover  his  readers  from  the  fanatical 
excitement  into  which  they  had  been  thrown  by  directing 
their  attention  to  certain  intermediate  events  which  must 
happen  before  the  parousia.  He  declares  that  he  had 
never  taught  them,  and  that  there  is  no  reason  to  believe, 
that  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  on  the  very  point  of  dawning 
(evearrjKev^  ii.  2),  that  is,  in  the  immediate  future.  Vari- 
ous events  must  precede  it.  Not  until  these  have  occurred 
should  the  parousia  be  expected.  These  intermediate 
events  are  described  by  the  terms,  "  the  apostasy  "  (ii.  3), 
the  revelation  of  " the  man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition" 
(y.  3),  and  the  "mystery  of  lawlessness"  (y.  7).  The 
apostle  evidently  has  in  mind  some  form  of  the  doctrine 


ESCHATOLOGY  473 

of  the  dolores  3Iessice  which  was  current  in  Judaism. 
Messiah's  advent  is  to  be  preceded  by  dread  signs  and 
portents. 

Within  what  sphere  these  events  were  to  occur  and  of 
what  nature  they  were  to  be,  are  questions  on  which  the 
most  divergent  opinions  have  been  entertained.  I  hold 
that  the  manifestation  of  evil  of  which  the  apostle  speaks 
was  conceived  of  as  occurring  within  the  sphere  of  anti- 
Christian  Judaism.  This  view  is  favored  both  by  the 
opposition  to  his  work,  which  he  had  encountered  from 
the  Jews  (<?/.  Acts  xiii.  46,  50  ;  xiv.  2  ;  xvii.  13),  and  by 
the  terms  in  which  he  describes  the  wickedness  in  ques- 
tion. It  is  an  "apostasy,"  which  naturally  suggests  a 
defection  from  the  true  religion,  and  is  embodied  in  a 
"lawless  one,"  apparently  a  false  Messiah,  who  takes  his 
place  in  the  temple  and  sets  up  blasphemous  pretensions. 
The  power  which  is  holding  this  "mystery  of  wicked- 
ness" in  check  is,  I  cannot  doubt,  the  Roman  Empire. 
This  view  is  favored  alike  by  the  vague  terms  in  which 
Paul  names  it  (o  /carej^cyz^;  to  /caTe^ov,  vv.  6,  7),  which 
are  quite  natural  in  connection  with  the  intimation  of 
its  approaching  destruction  (eo)^  etc  fieaov  yevrjraL,  v.  7), 
and  by  his  experience  in  being  protected  by  the  Roman 
power  against  Jewish  fanaticism  during  this  period  of  his 
career  (c/.  Acts  xix.  35-41 ;  xxii.  22-29).  It  should  not 
be  claimed,  however,  on  the  ground  of  this  passage  that 
Paul  changed  his  view  of  the  parousia  between  the  time 
of  writing  the  first  and  that  of  writing  the  second  Epistle. 
He  simply  qualified  his  statement  of  it  by  emphasizing 
considerations  which  were  adapted  to  temper  the  expecta- 
tion of  the  parousia  as  immediate  by  directing  attention 
to  certain  events  which  must  first  occur.  The  materials 
for  this  representation,  which  does  not  meet  us  elsewhere 
in  Paul,  were  present  in  his  mind  and  are  amply  illus- 
trated in  the  existing  form  of  one  Synoptic  tradition. 
They  represent  a  survival  in  the  early  Church  of  the 
Jewish  conception  of  the  premonitions  and  accompani- 
ments of  Messiah's  advent.  This  conception  was  trans- 
ferred by  the  disciples  from  the  first  to  the  second  coming 


474  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

and  modified  in  accordance  with  what  Jesus  was  supposed 
to  have  said  respecting  his  advent  and  interpreted,  as  in 
the  present  case,  in  the  light  of  the  progress  of  events. 

It  must  have  been  a  great  change  for  Paul  to  pass  from 
the  Jewish  to  the  Christian  view  of  death.  To  the  mind 
of  the  Jew  death  was  the  greatest  of  misfortunes.  It  was 
departure  to  Sheol,  a  gloomy  realm  of  shadows  and  for- 
getfulness.  It  was  the  forfeiture  of  life,  the  loss  of  life's 
fulness  and  richness,  abandonment  to  a  vague  and  pur- 
poseless existence,  a  state  of  deprivation  and  incomplete- 
ness. For  Paul  the  Christian  all  this  was  changed. 
Death  Avas  departure  to  be  with  Christ,  which  is  better 
than  continued  life  on  earth  (Phil.  i.  23) ;  it  is  the  portal 
to  a  full  and  happy  existence  in  which  the  believer  is  "  at 
home  with  the  Lord"  (2  Cor.  v.  6-8).  Death  is  not  to 
be  feared,  but  to  be  welcomed,  because  it  is  the  gate  to 
eternal  fulness  of  life.  Death,  as  the  Jew  knew  and 
dreaded  it,  exists  for  the  Christian  no  more.  This  con- 
ception was  no  doubt  rooted  in  Paul's  conviction  of  the 
believer's  union  with  Christ,  confirmed  probably  by  words 
of  Jesus  concerning  the  future  life  with  which  he  was 
familiar  (cf.  1  Thess.  iv.  15).  As  involving  the  dissolu- 
tion of  man's  earthly  body,  death  remains  ;  but  for  the 
Christian  its  power  is  broken,  its  sting  is  taken  away 
(1  Cor.  XV.  56).  The  believer  knows  that  death  shall  not 
have  dominion  over  him  ;  that  life  shall  subdue  the  "  last 
enemy  "  (xv.  26),  and  that  death  shall  be  "  swallowed  up 
in  victory  "  (xv.  54).  Hence  Paul  is  fond  of  describing 
death,  by  a  euphemism,  as  a  sleep  in  Jesus  (1  Thess.  iv.  14  ; 
1  Cor.  vii.  39  ;  xv.  6,  18,  20,  etc.).  The  term  expresses 
the  blessed  rest  in  fellowship  with  Christ  into  which  the 
believer  enters  at  death.  Death  is  robbed  of  its  terrors 
and  is  seen  as  the  entrance  into  the  fulness  of  peace,  joy, 
and  blessedness. 

It  is  in  connection  with  this  conception  of  death  as  the 
entrance  into  fulness  of  life  that  Paul  develops  his  doctrine 
of  resurrection.  As  I  have  said,  the  immediate  occasion 
of  his  defending  this  doctrine  at  so  great  length  was  the 
denial  of  it  by  some  (1  Cor.  xv.  12)  who  were  evidently 


ESCHATOLOGY  475 

possessed  of  the  common  Greek  idea  that  the  soul,  as  a 
spiritual  entity,  was  sufficient  unto  itself  and  required  no 
embodiment  (v.  35).  The  apostle's  argument  proceeds 
on  the  assumption  that  in  passing  from  this  world  into  a 
higher  sphere  man's  personality  is  not  to  be  dismembered  ; 
that  his  corporeal  life,  like  his  spiritual  life,  is  to  be  con- 
tinuous and  unbroken.  The  primary  ground  of  this  con- 
viction lies  in  Paul's  mysticism.  It  is  union  with  Christ 
which,  to  his  mind,  guarantees  this  continuity  of  life  , 
Christ's  resurrection  is  the  pledge  that  God  will  bring 
from  the  dead  those  who  are  fallen  asleep  in  him  (1  Thess. 
iv.  14  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  12-19).  Paul  starts  from  the  fact  that 
Christ  rose  from  the  dead.  That  being  true,  the  possi- 
bility of  resurrection  cannot  be  sweepingly  denied  (v.  12). 
Now  Christ's  resurrection  carries  with  it  the  resurrection 
of  those  who  are  united  to  him  (v.  20).  Moreover,  our 
salvation  would  be  only  an  imperfect  affair  if  it  related 
only  to  this  life  (y.  19).  If  the  idea  of  resurrection  is  to 
be  summarily  ruled  out  of  Christian  belief  and  hope,  then 
the  apostle's  doctrine  of  salvation  would  rest  upon  an  error 
of  fact,  since  the  assertion  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead 
was  central  in  it  (v.  15)  and,  equally,  upon  a  delusive 
hope  for  the  future  since,  in  that  case,  we  should  be  with- 
out the  guaranty  of  triumph  over  death  (^vv.  16-18).  But 
when  we  know  that  Christ,  the  spiritual  head  of  humanity, 
has  risen  from  the  dead,  all  is  changed.  Faith  and  hope 
have  strong  foundations  (y,  21  sq.)^  and  sufferings  for  the 
cause  of  Christ  are  amply  justified  (^vv.  31,  32) . 

These  arguments  are  adapted  to  foster  faith  in  the 
resurrection,  but  they  do  not  clear  it  of  the  difficulty : 
How  can  it  be  conceived  as  happening  ?  With  what  sort 
of  a  body  is  the  subject  of  resurrection  clothed  (y.  35)  ? 
The  apostle  declares  the  objection  superficial,  and  appeals 
to  analogies  to  show  that  transformations  from  one  form 
of  being  to  another,  and  the  variety  of  bodies  which  we 
observe  in  nature,  suggest  the  reasonableness  of  an  appro- 
priate embodiment  for  the  spirit  in  the  heavenly  world. 
His  first  illustration  is  drawn  from  seed-grain.  The 
kernel  which  is  buried  in  the  earth  is  transformed  by 


476  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    PAUL 

nature  into  a  new  product ;  to  the  life  which  the  seed 
enfolds  God  gives  a  new  form  or  body  through  the  myste- 
rious operation  of  natural  law  (^vv.  36-38).  This  analogy 
is  adapted  to  suggest  both  the  possible  organic  connection 
between  the  present  and  the  future  body  and,  also,  the 
superiority  of  the  latter.  He  next  appeals  to  the  variety 
of  embodiments  which  God  provides  for  different  creat- 
ures,—  men,  beasts,  fishes,  —  which  are,  in  each  case, 
adapted  to  the  environment  and  needs  of  the  several 
orders  of  being  (v.  39).  "All  flesh  is  not  the  same 
flesh."  Again:  If  we  contemplate  the  heavenly  bodies, 
we  behold  great  variety  in  magnitude  and  beauty.  Here 
we  observe  higher  and  lower,  more  and  less  glorious 
(^vv.  40,  41).  "So  also,"  says  the  apostle,  "is  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead."  There  may  be  a  future  embodiment 
for  the  spirit  as  much  higher  than  the  present  as  the 
spiritual  world  is  beyond  this  material  world,  as  well 
adapted  to  the  uses  of  man's  personality  in  a  higher  realm 
of  existence  as  the  present  body  is  adapted  to  this,  and 
as  much  surpassing  our  present  body  of  flesh  and  blood 
as  one  star  surpasses  another  star  in  splendor.  "There 
is  a  spiritual  body "  (crcofia  TrvevixariKov),  a  glorified  cor- 
poreity, adapted  to  the  spiritual  world,  as  truly  as  there 
is  "  a  natural  body  "  (aMfxa  'yjrvxi^Kov')  adapted  to  our  life 
in  this  world  (y.  44).  Paul's  gospel  is  the  gospel  of  the 
body  as  well  as  of  the  spirit.  The  whole  personality  is 
to  be  conserved  and  saved.  No  part  of  our  life  is  to  be 
discarded,  but  all  is  to  be  fulfilled  and  perfected.  Sal- 
vation includes  "the  redemption  of  the  body"  (Rom. 
viii.  23). 

It  is  obvious  that  these  considerations  do  not  answer  all 
the  questions  which  it  is  natural  to  ask  concerning  the 
subject.  The  apostle  does  not  undertake  to  say  what  is 
the  nature  of  this  higher  embodiment,  this  "house  from 
heaven"  (2  Cor.  v.  2),  which  God  will  provide  for  the 
redeemed  spirit.  It  is  enough  for  him  to  know  that  it  will 
be  in  the  image  of  the  glorified  Christ  (1  Cor.  xv.  49)  —  a 
body  conformed  to  his  own  glorious  body  (Phil.  iii.  21). 
What  the  relation  will  be  between  the  present  body  and 


ESCHATOLOGY  477 

that  wliich  is  to  be,  Paul  does  not  say.  His  analogy  of 
the  relation  of  the  seed  to  its  product  suggests  at  once  a 
connection  and  a  difference.  The  grain  comes  out  of  the 
seed,  but  it  is  also  something  new  and  different  from  it. 
"Thou  sowest  not  the  body  that  shall  be"  (v.  37).  The 
analogy  would  be  quite  inappropriate  if  the  apostle  had 
conceived  the  resurrection  as  consisting  in  the  resuscita- 
tion of  the  buried  flesh.  It  was  enough  for  Paul  to  main- 
tain a  continuity  of  corporeal  life.  It  is  unlikely  that  he 
had  any  precise  conception  of  the  mysterious  connection 
between  the  psychical  and  the  spiritual  bodies. 

How,  then,  does  Paul  conceive  of  resurrection  (^avdara- 
o-t?)  ?  What  is  raised,  and  from  what  is  it  raised  ?  It  isl 
to  be  noticed  that  Paul  does  not  speak  of  the  resurrection*, 
of  the  hody^  as  he  naturally  would  have  done  had  he\ 
believed  in  Si^resurrectio  carnis.  He  always  predicates  res- 
urrection of  persons.  His  uniform  phrases  are  :  avdaraai^ 
veKpcov^  or  rSyv  veKpojv^  and  avdarao-L^  i/c  ve/cpcjv  (1  Cor.  xv. 
12,  13,  21,  et  al;  Rom.  vi.  4,  vii.  4  et  al.)  The  latter 
expression  he  regularly  applies  to  Christ's  resurrection  ;  ^ 
the  former  to  the  resurrection  of  other  persons.  It  is 
therefore  the  person  who  is  raised  and  he  rises  from 
among  the  dead  (eV  veicpwv)^  that  is,  from  the  abode  of  the 
dead,  conceived  of  by  the  Jewish  mind  as  the  underworld. 
Unless  Paul  had  completely  abandoned  the  conception  of 
Sheol  he  would  necessarily  conceive  of  resurrection  as  a 
rising  from  the  realm  of  death.  For  him,  resurrection  is 
neither  resurrection  of  the  body  nor  resurrection  from  the 
ground  in  which  the  body  is  buried,  but  is  a  rising  of  the 
personality  from  the  realm  of  death  into  the  realm  of  light 
and  life,  whereupon  the  spirit  is  clothed  with  its  heavenly 
habitation.  In  this  Jewish  form  the  apostle  has  expressed 
the  contents  of  his  Christian  hope  respecting  the  blessed 

1  In  Phil.  iii.  11,  however,  the  apostle  writes:  "If  by  any  means  I 
may  attain  unto  the  resurrection  from  the  dead"  (e/s  tt]v  e^avda-raa-Lv  t7]v 
€K  veKpGjv).  The  phrase  refers  to  the  resurrection  of  believers,  elsewhere 
expressed  by  dvda-Taais  [rwi']  vcKpQv,  but  this  resurrection  is  here  mysti- 
cally conceived  of  as  participation  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  (cf.  v.  10) , 
and  is  thus  naturally  described  in  the  terms  which  are  regularly  applied 
to  Christ's  resurrection. 


478  THE   THEOLOGY   OF  PAUL 

and  perfect  life.  He  has  not  touched  upon  the  numerous 
questions  which  speculation  suggests.  These  questions 
did  not  concern  him.  His  interest  in  the  subject  was 
entirely  religious  and  practical.  It  was  enough  for  him 
to  know  that  Christ  was  the  guaranty  of  a  perfected  life 
to  come,  that  the  believer  should  triumph  over  death,  and 
attain  his  complete  salvation  in  the  fellowship  and  like- 
ness of  Christ. 

Did  Paul,  then,  believe  in  an  intermediate  state  ?  His 
views  of  the  resurrection  as  a  rising  from  the  underworld 
and  as  a  definite  future  event,  would  seem  to  involve  the 
idea  of  a  middle  state.  Yet  he  has  developed  no  doctrine 
on  that  subject.  Perhaps  his  neglect  of  it  may  have  been 
due  to  his  expectation  that  the  parousia  was  near.  On 
such  a  view  the  significance  of  an  intermediate  state  would 
be  greatly  reduced.  Against  the  supposition  that  Paul 
believed  in  such  a  state  between  death  and  resurrection, 
may  be  urged  the  fact  that  he  describes  Christians  as 
entering  at  death  into  immediate  fellowship  with  Christ 
(2  Cor.  V.  6-8  ;  Phil.  i.  23).  How  is  this  idea  of  per- 
fected blessedness  at  death  to  be  adjusted  to  the  idea  that 
the  resurrection  is  a  future  eschatological  event  occur- 
ring in  connection  with  the  Lord's  second  coming?  The 
apostle  has  furnished  us  with  no  means  of  answering  this 
question.  If  we  solve  the  problem  by  making  the  res- 
urrection a  process,  or  by  supposing  that  an  imperfect 
preliminary  embodiment  which  is,  perhaps,  subject  to  a 
development,  is  given  at  death,  we  go  quite  beyond  Paul. 
Some  such  supposition,  however,  seems  necessary  if  the 
two  conceptions  in  question  are  to  be  adjusted  at  all. 
/  Paul  does  not  hold  the  conception  of  two  resurrections, 
^  that  of  believers,  and  that  of  the  rest  of  mankind,  sepa- 
^  rated  by  a  millennium  or  other  period.  The  words  :  "  The 
\  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first''  (1  Thess.  iv.  16),  stand 
over  against  the  words :  "  Then  we  that  are  alive  shall  be 
caught  up"  (v.  17).  The  correlatives  irpoirov  and  eireira 
here  refer  to  the  rising  of  the  dead  in  Christ  as  a  first 
event,  to  be  followed  next  by  the  translation  of  believers, 
and  contain  no  reference  to  a  second  resurrection.     Some 


ESCHATOLOGY  479 

find  the  idea  of  two  resurrections  in  the  words :  "  Christ 
the  first-fruits ;  then  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming. 
Then  cometh  tlie  end,"  etc.  (1  Cor.  xv.  23,  24),  that  is, 
the  end  of  the  resurrection^  that  is,  the  resurrection  of  non- 
Christians.  But  this  interpretation  is  improbable  in  view 
of  the  words  wliicli  follow  and  which  seem  to  explain 
"  the  end,"  namely  :  "  When  he  shall  deliver  up  the  king- 
dom to  God,  even  the  Father  "  (y.  24).  "  The  end"  most 
naturally  refers  to  Christ's  consummation  of  his  Kingdom, 
and  denotes  the  termination  of  the  present  world-period, 
the  goal  of  human  history. 

Whether  Paul  held  that  the  resurrection  will  be  univer- 
sal or  not  is  a  difficult  and  disputed  question.  In  Acts 
xxiv.  15  he  is  described  as  asserting  "  a  resurrection  both 
of  the  just  and  unjust."  In  his  epistles,  however,  he 
nowhere  speaks  of  a  resurrection  of  all  mankind,  unless 
he  does  so  in  the  passages  just  noticed.  The  words  :  "  As 
in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive  " 
(1  Cor.  XV.  22),  can  hardly  be  appealed  to  in  support  of 
the  absolute  universality  of  the  resurrection,  since  the  con- 
text and  drift  of  the  whole  argument  naturally  limit  "  all," 
in  its  concrete  application,  to  those  who  are  in  living 
fellowship  with  Christ.  Moreover,  the  Avhole  argument 
for  the  resurrection,  in  1  Cor.  xv.,  is  based  upon  mystic 
union  with  Christ  as  its  ground  and  guaranty,  and  would 
be  inapplicable  to  unbelievers.  Such  are  the  facts  of  the 
case.  What  is  the  natural  inference  from  the  facts  ? 
Those  who  argue  from  the  silence  of  the  epistles  respecting 
the  resurrection  of  unbelievers  and  from  the  applicability 
of  his  arguments  to  Christians  only,  may  be  referred  to 
Acts  xxiv.  15,  and  to  the  fact  that,  according  to  Paul,  all 
men  are  to  be  judged  (1  Cor.  vi.  2 ;  xi.  32),  and  that 
Paul  regards  the  judgment  as  preceded  by  and  presuppos- 
ing resurrection.  Moreover,  the  argument  of  1  Cor.  xv., 
which  was  addressed  to  Christians,  may  have  been  con- 
structed in  view  of  a  special  situation,  and  may  not  have 
represented  the  only  ground  on  which  Paul  would  have 
affirmed  belief  in  the  resurrection.  On  the  whole,  it  is 
probable  that   he  assumed  the  resurrection  of   all  men, 


480  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

though  in  some  different  sense  and  with  different  accom- 
paniments and  conditions,  in  the  case  of  the  righteous  and 
in  that  of  the  wicked  respectively. 

All  men  are  amenable  to-4he -final  judgment.  The  work 
of  Christians  shall  be  tested  and  approved  or  rejected,  but 
even  if  the  work  is  burned  up  in  the  fire  of  the  judgment, 
the  persons  shall  be  saved,  but  as  if  by  escaping  through 
the  flames  Avhich  consume  their  misdirected  life-work 
(1  Cor.  iii.  14,  15).  "We  shall  all  (that  is,  all  Chris- 
tians) stand  before  the  judgement-seat  of  Christ.  Each 
of  us  shall  give  account  of  himself  to  God"  (Rom.  xiv. 
10,  12).  But  in  the  day  of  judgment  God  will  render  to 
all  men  according  to  their  works  (Rom.  ii.  5-9).  The 
apostle  here  seems  to  describe  the  judgment  in  strictly 
legal  terms,  and  to  represent  its  awards  as  bestowed  ac- 
cording to  the  works  of  men  (2  Cor.  v.  10).  How  can 
such  a  conception  be  harmonized  with  the  doctrine  that 
God  deals  generously  with  the  obedient  and  trustful.  If 
equivalence  to  one's  deeds  is  the  principle  of  award  in  the 
judgment,  what  becomes  of  the  doctrine  of  grace?  Vari- 
ous answers  have  been  proposed  for  this  difficulty.  It  has 
been  held  that  the  correlatives,  faith  and  works,  and  grace 
and  debt,  express  theoretic  contrasts  which  are  resolved  in 
application  to  life  and  character.  Some  have  said  that 
Paul's  doctrine  of  judgment  remained  Jewish,  and  was 
never  assimilated  to  his  doctrine  of  grace.  It  is  certain 
that  Paul  has  expressed  his  doctrine  of  judgment  in  Jew- 
ish, rather  than  in  evangelical,  terms.  But  the  sugges- 
tion of  Weiss,  that  the  equivalence  between  the  awards 
and  the  deeds  done  "is  not  to  be  regarded  in  the  rigid 
judicial  sense,  but  as  the  natural  correspondence  of  harvest 
and  seed-time  "  (Gal.  vi.  7,  8),^  seems  to  me  very  pertinent. 
The  Christian's  "deeds"  are  not  regarded  by  Paul  as 
legal  "works"  of  merit,  but  as  deeds  and  services  which, 
as  inwardly  inspired  by  the  Spirit,  naturally  flow  from  the 
Christian  life.  It  is  no  more  necessary  to  separate  Paul's 
doctrine  of  judgment  from  his  gospel  of  grace  and  faith 
than  it  is  to  read  his  doctrine   of  salvation  in   juridical 

1  Bihl.  Theol  §  98,  d. 


ESCHATOLOGY  481 

terms  alone,  because  of  liis  doctrine  of  justification.  For 
some  reason  Paul  did  not  carry  over  the  terms  of  his  doc- 
trine of  grace  and  apply  them  to  the  subject  of  final  judg- 
ment. But  it  is  impossible  that  he  could  have  conceived 
of  the  principle  of  equivalence  as  having  the  same  appli- 
cation, in  the  judgment,  to  the  believer  and  to  the  unbe- 
liever. For  the  former  whom  God  has  graciously  accepted 
and  forgiven  there  is  "no  condemnation,"  either  here  or 
hereafter.  His  references  to  the  judgment  must  be  read 
in  the  light  of  his  central  doctrine  of  gracious  forgiveness. 
The  order  of  the  events  which  we  have  studied,  as  Paul 
conceives  it,  is,  the  parousia,  the„_resuxrection,  and  the 
judgment.  The^g" issue  in  the  final  consummation  of  the 
Messianic  Kingdom.  Then  Christ,  after  vanquishing  all 
enemies,  will  surrender  to  God  his  mediatorial  Kingdom, 
that  God  may  be  all  in  all  (1  Cor.  xv.  24-28  •,  Col.  i.  20 ; 
Phil.  ii.  10,  11).  The  apostle  is  confident  of  the  victory  V 
of  Christ  over  all  opposing  powers.  Does  he  conceive 
this  victory  as  involving  the  voluntary  submission  of 
all,  that  is,  universal  restoration  to  holiness,  or  does  the 
supposition  of  a  reduction  of  all  foes  to  impotence,  even 
should  they  remain  foes,  satisfy  the  apostle's  language? 
Paul's  strong  expressions  concerning  the  triumph  of  Christ 
must  be  understood  in  the  light  of  his  system  as  a  whole. 
Taken  in  isolation  such  phrases  as :  "  In  Christ  shall  all 
be  made  alive"  (1  Cor.  xv.  22),  and,  "that  God  may  be 
all  in  all "  (y.  28 ;  cf.  Eph.  i.  10),  strongly  suggest  uni- 
versal restoration.  But  the  former  doubtless  refers  to 
resurrection  and  how  can  "  all "  be  raised  "  in  Christ  " 
unless  they  first  be  joined  to  Christ  by  the  union  of  faith 
and  love  ?  In  the  second  phrase  (o  6eo^  ra  irdvra  ev  iraatv')^ 
the  word  iracnv,  whether  taken  as  masculine  or  neuter, 
cannot  well  be  understood  as  more  comprehensive  than 
the  "  all  things  "  which  have  just  been  mentioned  as  ruled 
over  by  the  Son.  All  shall  bow  to  Christ  (Phil.  ii.  10), 
but  the  apostle  does  not  say  that  all  shall  willingly  and 
obediently  bow  to  him.  He  certainly  does  not  conceive 
that,  at  the  judgment,  all  will  have  received  Christ,  but 
that  there  will  then  be  those  who  "  are  factious  and  obey 
2i 


482  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   PAUL 

not  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness  "  to  whom  God 
will  render  "  wrath  and  indignation,  tribulation  and  an- 
guish "  (Rom.  ii.  8,  9).i 

The  apostle's  eschatology  was  the  projection  of  Chris- 
tian hope  into  the  life  beyond.  The  form  of  this  hope 
was  not  a  little  affected  by  the  views  of  the  future  life  in 
which  he  had  been  trained.  Paul  was  certain  that  God 
would  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  (Acts  xvii.  31) 
and  that  a  blessed  and  perfected  life  awaited  the  Chris- 
tian. His  language  cannot  be  made  to  yield  any  definite 
and  complete  eschatological  programme.  The  elements  of 
his  teaching  are  not  coordinated  into  a  scheme  of  doctrine. 
It  is  only  by  making  the  most  generous  inferences  from 
his  language  that  any  of  the  modern  eschatological  sys- 
tems can  be  derived  from  his  teaching.  On  this  subject, 
as  on  all  others,  he  wrote,  not  with  a  view  to  satisfying 
speculative  thought,  but  with  the  hope  of  fostering  and 
strengthening  the  Christian  faith  and  hope. 

1  On  "Alleged  Pauline  Universalism  "  see  Note  C  to  Lecture  IX.  in 
Orr's  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World. 


PART   V 

THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE 
HEBEEWS 

CHAPTER   I 

INTRODUCTOKY 

With  respect  to  the  historical  problems  which  concern 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  there  is  but  a  single  point  on 
which  modern  critics  are  substantially  agreed,  and  that  is 
the  rather  barren  negative  conclusion  that  the  epistle  was 
not  written  by  the  apostle  Paul.  This  result  is  the  less 
satisfying  because  there  is  no  cogent  reason  known  to  us 
why  it  should  ever  have  been  regarded  as  Pauline.  It 
does  not  claim  to  have  been  written  by  Paul,  and  the  dic- 
tion, style,  and  mode  of  argument  are  so  widely  different 
from  Paul's  as  to  furnish  almost  a  demonstration  that  the 
epistle  is  the  work  of  some  other  hand.  Little,  if  any, 
progress,  however,  has  been  made  in  modern  times  towards 
a  positive  view  respecting  its  authorship.  Criticism  is  still 
compelled  to  acquiesce  in  the  ancient  opinion  of  Origen, 
as  reported  in  Eusebius.^ 

The  most  plausible  conjectures  respecting  the  author- 
ship are  those  of  Tertullian  and  Luther,  the  former  of 
whom  assigned  the  epistle  to  Barnabas,^  the  latter  to 
Apollos.     Either  of  these  suppositions  would  fairly  well 

1  "  Who  it  was  that  really  wrote  the  epistle,  God  only  knows."  Ecc. 
Hist.  Bk.  VI.  ch.  xxv. 

2  "  For  there  is  extant  an  epistle  of  Barnabas,  inscribed  to  the  Hebrews, 
a  man  of  such  authority  that  Paul  has  placed  him  next  to  himself  in  the 
same  course  of  abstinence  "  (1  Cor.  ix.  6).     De  Pudicitia,  ch.  xx. 

483 


484  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBEEWS 

account  for  the  phenomena  of  the  epistle.  As  a  promi- 
nent member  of  the  Jerusalem  Church  and  a  disciple  of 
the  primitive  apostles  (of.  ii.  3),  Barnabas  might  natu- 
rally write  to  his  fellow-believers  in  Palestine  to  warn 
them  against  lapsing  back  into  Judaism.  Moreover,  as 
a  Hellenist  from  Cyprus,  Barnabas  might  be  supposed  to 
possess  the  requisite  literary  qualifications  for  writing  such 
an  epistle,  and  as  a  Levite  he  might,  not  unnaturally,  have 
the  familiarity  with  the  details  of  the  Levitical  worship 
and  the  keen  interest  in  it  which  tlie  epistle  so  frequently 
displays.^  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  strange  that  if  Barna- 
bas, a  man  of  apostolic  rank  and  influence  (Acts  xiv.  4, 
14),  had  been  the  writer,  his  name  should  not  have  been 
given  to  the  epistle,  or,  at  any  rate,  preserved  in  connec- 
tion with  it  from  the  beginning.  Moreover,  we  have  no 
evidence  that  Barnabas  ]30ssessed  the  Alexandrian  culture 
which  is  revealed  in  the  epistle.  The  principal  considera- 
tion in  favor  of  Apollos  is  that  he  is  described  in  the  Acts 
as  a  cultured  and  rhetorical  Alexandrian,  who  was  well 
versed  in  the  Greek  Old  Testament. ^  This  fact  might 
account  for  the  elaborate  style,  the  Alexandrian  cast,  the 
kinship  with  Philo  and  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  and  the 
copious  use  of  the  Septuagint  in  the  epistle,  while  the  fact 
that  Apollos  had  come  under  the  influence  of  Paul  might 
be  regarded  as  explaining  its  kinship  to  Paul's  thought. ^ 
On  the  other  hand,  Apollos  was  not  a  disciple  of  the 
primitive  apostles,  as  the  author  of  Hebrews  seems  to 
have  been  (ii.  3).  The  argument  carries  us  only  thus 
far :  The  author,  if  not  Apollos,  was  some  such  a  man 
as  Apollos  was  ;  he  was  a  literary  Hellenist,  who  was 
familiar  with  the  philosophical  ideas  which  were  current 
at  Alexandria  and  practised  in  the  argumentative  use  of 
the  Septuagint. 

1  Among  the  modern  scholars  who  favor  the  Barnabas  hypothesis  may- 
be mentioned  Renan,  Ritschl,  Weiss,  and  Salmon. 

2  Acts  xviii.  24  sq.  ;  cf.  1  Cor.  ii.  1-5,  where  Paul  seems  to  be  contrast- 
ing his  own  plain  and  straightforward  style  with  the  more  rhetorical  and 
speculative  method  of  Apollos. 

3  Among  the  modern  scholars  who  have  adopted  this  view  are  Bleek, 
De  Wette,  Liinemann,  Alford,  and  Farrar. 


INTRODUCTORY  485 

Respecting  the  nationality  and  location  of  the  persons 
addressed,  and  the  date  of  writing,  scholars  are  still  much 
divided.  The  common  view  is  that  tlie  readers  were  Jew- 
ish Christians.  Some,  however,  hold  ^  that  they  were,  at 
least  in  part,  converted  Jewish  proselj^tes,  and  that  the 
writer  warns  against  a  relapse  into  heathenism  (^e.g.  in 
iii.  12 ;  vi.  2  ;  xiii.  9)  as  well  as  against  a  reversion  to 
Judaism.  The  title,  "  To  the  Hebrews,"  cannot  greatly 
help  us  here,  since,  although  ancient,  it  is  not  original. 
The  Alexandrian  tone  of  the  letter  supplies  but  a  slender 
basis  for  the  view  that  it  was  addressed  to  Alexandria  — 
the  more  so  since  we  have  no  evidence  that  at  Alexandria, 
where  the  epistle  was  so  highly  valued,  anything  was 
known  of  that  city  as  being  its  original  destination.  A 
widely  prevalent  view  at  present — ^especially  among  the 
representatives  of  the  German  liberal  school  —  is  that 
the  epistle  was  written  to  Rome.  It  is  thought  that  the 
allusions  to  the  persecutions  of  the  readers  (x.  32,  33; 
xii.  1-13)  tally  with  the  history  of  Roman  persecutions 
under  Nero  and  Domitian  respectively,  and  that  the  alle- 
gorizing and  typical  method  of  interpretation  found  in 
the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  may  have  been  derived 
from  Hebrews,  since  Clement  betrays  a  special  fondness 
for  this  epistle.  The  fact  that  greetings  are  sent  to  the 
readers  by  the  Italian  Christians  (xiii.  24)  is  also  thought 
to  point  in  the  same  direction.  This  theory  is  sometimes 
associated  with  the  view  that  the  Roman  church  was 
predominantly  Jewish  —  an  opinion  which  seems  to  me 
decidedly  contrary  to  the  evidence  furnished  by  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans. ^  More  commonly,  however,  those 
who  now  regard  Rome  as  the  destination  of  the  letter 
hold  that  it  was  not  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians  at 
all,  but  to  Christians  in  general.^ 

1  So  Weizsacker,  von  Soden,  Pfleiderer. 

2  The  view  that  our  epistle  was  addressed  to  Rome  is  held  by  Pflei- 
derer, von  Soden,  Holtzmann,  Jiilicher,  and  McGiffert.  Harnack  and 
M^n^goz  say  that  it  is  impossible  to  determine  where  the  persons  addressed 
resided. 

3  "The  inscription  'To  the  Hebrews'  is  only  the  unhappy  conjecture 
of  a  later  time."     Weizsacker,  Apostolic  Age,  II.  157  (orig.  p.  490).     "It 


486  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

The  more  common  view  has  been  that  the  letter  was 
written  to  Palestinian  or  Syrian  Jewish  Christians.^  The 
numerous  and  detailed  references  to  the  Jewish  temple- 
worship,  the  apparent  reference  to  the  readers  as  hearers 
of  the  primitive  apostles  (ii.  3),  the  allusion  to  the  long 
time  which  had  elapsed  since  their  conversion  (v.  12), 
and  the  fact  that  the  whole  burden  of  the  letter  is  :  Do 
not  go  back  to  the  ritual  law  and  the  sacrificial  worship, 
are  among  the  reasons  for  this  theory.*^  This  view  is  not 
without  difficulties.  We  should  hardly  expect  to  hear  the 
dependent  Palestinian  Christians  credited  with  such  liber- 
ality and  generosity  as  the  author  ascribes  to  his  readers 
(vi.  10) ;  yet  the  poor  may  be  generous.  The  peculiar 
use  which  the  author  makes  of  the  Septuagint  may  not 
have  been  perfectly  adapted  to  Hebrew  readers,  but  if 
he  was  trained  in  the  Greek  Bible  it  would  be  perfectly 
natural  for  him.  All  things  considered,  I  hold  this  ''  tra- 
ditional "  opinion  to  be  the  best  supported. 

Closely  connected  with  the  question  of  destination  is 
the  question  of  date.  Those  who  hold  that  the  letter  was 
addressed  to  the  Christians  of  Rome  commonly  place  it 
within  the  reign  of  Domitian  (81-96).^  The  more  com- 
mon view  is  that  the  epistle  was  written  during  the  years 
65-70.*     The  numerous  references  in  the  present  tense  to 

is  extremely  unlikely  that  the  epistle  was  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians 
at  all."     McGiffert,  Apostolic  Age,  p.  465. 

1  "To  one  of  these  great  Syrian  churches,  perhaps  to  Antioch  itself, 
I  conceive  the  epistle  to  have  been  addressed ;  for  there  alone  existed 
flourishing  Christian  churches,  founded  by  the  earliest  missionaries  of  the 
gospel,  animated  with  Jewish  sympathies,  full  of  interest  in  the  Mosaic 
worship,  and  glorying  in  the  name  of  Hebrews,  who  nevertheless  spoke 
the  Greek  language,  used  the  Greek  version  of  the  Scriptures,  and  num- 
bered amongst  their  members  those  who  had,  like  the  author,  combined 
the  highest  advantages  of  Greek  culture  with  careful  study  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  especially  of  the  sacrificial  law."  Kendall,  Theology 
of  the  Hebrew  Christians,  p.  69. 

2  This  opinion  is  defended  by  Bleek,  Weiss,  Godet,  Westcott,  Hort, 
Bruce,  and  Beyschlag.  M6n6goz  holds  that  the  epistle  was  written  to 
Jewish  Christians,  but  whether  living  in  Rome,  Palestine,  or  the  Diaspora, 
cannot  be  determined. 

3  So  Holtzmann,  Pfleiderer,  Jlilicher,  Harnack,  McGiffert.  Harnack, 
however,  says  that  the  epistle  may  be  earlier  than  the  reign  of  Domitian, 

*  So  Weiss,  Beyschlag,  Sanday,  Farrar,  M6n6goz. 


INTRODUCTOBT  487 

the  temple-worship  naturally  imply  that  the  temple  was 
still  standing  at  the  time  of  writing.  The  whole  char- 
acter and  scope  of  the  argument  against  a  reversicMi,  on 
the  part  of  the  Christians,  to  the  Levitical  cultus  seem  to 
assume  that  the  sacrificial  system  was  a  present  reality  and 
exerted  a  powerful  attractive  force  upon  the  minds  of  the 
readers.  To  these  considerations  it  is  hardly  a  sufficient 
answer  to  say  that  the  references  to  the  temple  services 
are  made  solely  on  account  of  their  significance,  and  there- 
fore do  not  imply  the  temple's  existence  at  the  time. 

Although  I  hold  to  the  earlier  date  and  to  the  Pales- 
tinian, or  Syrian,  destination  of  our  epistle,  a  pronounced 
view  on  these  points  is  in  no  way  essential  to  my  pres- 
ent task.  The  doctrinal  ideas  of  the  epistle,  and  their 
relation  to  Paulinism  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  Alexan- 
drianism  on  the  other,  may  be  studied  and  determined 
independently  of  one's  theory  on  these  difficult  and  dis- 
puted points. 

The  aim  of  the  epistle  is  to  induce  the  readers  to  remain 
steadfast  in  their  adherence  to  Christ.  The  burden  of  all 
the  author's  arguments  and  appeals  is :  Do  not  apostatize. 
The  author  fortifies  his  exhortation  by  an  elaborate  series 
of  arguments  designed  to  prove  that  the  gospel  is  more 
perfect  than  Judaism.  He  first  dwells  on  the  superiority 
of  Christ  to  the  angels  who  (according  to  the  Septuagint 
and  Jewish  tradition)  introduced  the  legal  system  (chs. 
i.,  ii.)  ;  then  upon  his  superiority  to  Moses,  the  great  law- 
giver (chs.  iii.,  iv.).  He  then  enters  upon  the  most 
elaborate  argument  of  the  epistle  to  show  that  Christ's 
priesthood  is  superior  to  the  Old  Testament  priesthood. 
The  chief  points  of  the  argument  are  that  Christ  is  a 
priest  after  a  higher  order  (that  of  Melchizedek)  than 
the  Aaronic  priests ;  that  unlike  them  he  ministers  in  the 
upper,  heavenly  sanctuary,  the  immediate  presence  of  God ; 
and  that  he  is  connected  with  a  better  covenant  than  that 
which  God  made  with  the  Jewish  people.  These  points 
are  enforced  with  appropriate  exhortations  to  fidelity 
(chs.  v.-xii.).  The  letter  closes  with  sundry  advices 
and  appeals  (ch.  xiii.). 


488  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

The  epistle  betrays  a  general  kinship  to  Paulinism. 
There  is  the  same  eagerness  to  prevent  the  readers  from 
ofoin^r  back  to  Judaism  Avhich  we  find  in  Galatians  —  the 
same  intense  conviction  of  the  defects  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment system,  and  of  the  completeness  of  the  gospel,  which 
Paul  so  frequently  asserts.  With  Paul  our  author  regards 
the  old  covenant  as  divine,  but  as  having  served  its  provi- 
dential purpose  and  as  having  been  superseded  by  the 
gospel.  But  these  resemblances  are,  after  all,  very  gen- 
eral. In  their  modes  of  thought  and  methods  of  argument 
the  two  writers  differ  widely.  When  Paul  speaks  of  the 
law  he  refers  primarily  to  its  ethical  content  and  require- 
ments. To  this  writer  the  law  means  the  Levitical  cultus. 
The  apostle's  philosophy  of  the  law  as  deepening  the  con- 
sciousness of  sin  and  making  transgressions  abound,  is 
wholly  wanting  in  Hebrews.  The  reasons  why  the  law 
cannot  save  are  quite  different  in  the  two  writers.  With 
Paul  the  law  cannot  save  because  of  the  moral  impotence 
of  sinful  man  to  keep  it ;  with  our  author  its  failure  is 
due  to  the  inefficiency  of  animal  sacrifices  to  cleanse  the 
conscience.  In  Hebrews  the  law  and  the  gospel  are  re- 
lated as  shadow  and  substance,  promise  and  fulfilment; 
the  contrariety  of  the  two  in  principle  and  effect  is  less 
strongly  emphasized  than  by  Paul.  Our  author's  con- 
ception of  faith  is  less  mystical  than  Paul's.  With  the 
former,  faith  is  constancy,  fidelity,  heroic  belief  in  the 
unseen  and  the  apparently  improbable ;  with  Paul  it  is 
life-union  with  Christ.  Of  the  import  of  circumcision, 
the  opposition  between  flesh  and  spirit,  Christ's  endur- 
ance of  the  curse  of  the  law,  justification  by  faith,  and  the 
call  of  the  Gentiles,  our  author  says  nothing.  The  like- 
ness and  differences  to  which  I  can  only  refer  here  will 
be  more  particularly  noted  in  the  exposition.^ 

The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  strongly 
imbued  with  Platonic  and  Alexandrian  thought.  The 
contrast  between  the  lower  world  of  shadows  and  sem- 
blances and  the  heavenly  world  of  abiding  realities  which 

1  For  an  instructive  study  of  our  author's  relation  to  Paulinism,  see 
M^n^goz,  La  Theologie  de  VEpitre  aux  Hebreux,  ch.  vi.  §  2. 


INTRODUCTORY  489 

is  SO  prominent  in  the  epistle,  reminds  one  of  the  distinc- 
tion between  tlie  sensible  and  the  intelligible  world  which 
Philo  had  derived  from  Plato.  Many  of  our  author's 
peculiar  words,  phrases,  and  allusions,  such  as  the  cutting 
word  of  God  and  the  references  to  Melchizedek,  are, 
doubtless,  echoes  of  Philo.  Most  clearly  of  all  do  the 
allegorizing  exegesis  of  our  author  and  his  exclusive  use 
of  the  Septuagint  betray  his  Alexandrian  education.  These 
peculiarities  seem  to  me  to  lend  a  special  interest  and  charm 
to  his  exposition  of  Christianity.  Since  we  have  inter- 
pretations of  the  gospel,  largely  in  terms  of  Judaism,  from 
the  primitive  disciples,  James  and  Peter,  and  an  elaborate 
exposition  and  defence  of  it  from  the  bold  and  independent 
mind  of  the  converted  legalist,  Paul,  it  is  a  matter  of  no 
small  interest  that  we  have  also  a  rendering  of  Christian- 
ity in  terms  of  the  Alexandrian  philosophy  of  religion. 
Yet  these  various  tongues  speak  essentially  one  message.^ 

1  In  addition  to  the  elaborate  biblico-theological  treatises  of  Riehm  and 
Mdn^goz  on  this  epistle,  I  would  particularly  commend  to  the  student  a 
series  of  twenty  papers  by  Professor  A.  B.  Bruce,  in  the  Third  (Vols. 
VII. -X.)  and  Fourth  Series  (Vols.  I.,  II.)  of  The  Expositor.  These  articles 
take  up  the  epistle  part  by  part,  and  graphically  portray  its  theological 
and  practical  contents. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  OLD  AND  THE  NEW  COVENANT 

The  author's  main  purpose  is,  as  we  have  seen,  to 
persuade  his  readers  to  remain  faithful  to  Christ.  In  the 
effort  to  attain  that  end  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  estab- 
lish the  superiority  of  the  gospel  to  the  law.  This  he 
does  by  exhibiting  a  series  of  contrasts  between  the  two 
systems  The  comparison  is  chiefly  made  between  Christ, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  angels,  Moses,  and  the  Aaronic 
priests,  on  the  other.  The  author  develops  his  argument 
both  on  its  negative  and  on  its  positive  side.  He  pictures 
the  defects  of  the  Mosaic  system  and  dwells  upon  the 
superlative  excellences  of  Christ  and  his  work  of  salvation. 
It  will  be  convenient,  for  purposes  of  analysis,  to  begin 
by  deducing  from  the  epistle  the  writer's  doctrine  of  the 
old  covenant. 

Like  the  apostle  Paul,  our  author  regards  the  Old 
Testament  system  as  divine  in  its  origin  God  made  the 
old  covenant  with  the  fathers  in  the  days  of  their  deliver- 
ance from  Egypt,  although  it  was  not  a  faultless  covenant 
(viii.  7-9).  It  was  the  voice  of  God  which,  in  the  olden 
time,  spoke  through  the  prophets,  although  it  gave  but  a 
partial  disclosure  of  the  divine  will  and  purpose  (i.  1). 
We  have  seen  that,  for  our  author,  the  sacrificial  system 
was  the  centre  and  soul  of  Judaism.  This  he  regards  as 
divinely  established  The  plan  of  the  tabernacle  and  the 
arrangements  for  its  worship  were  divinely  revealed  and 
sanctioned  (viii.  5;  ix.  1  sg.).  Jewish  history  presents  a 
long  list  of  believers  who  have  been  the  agents  of  God  in 
the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes  (xi.).  Moses  was 
God's  faithful  servant  in  the  regulation  and  administra- 
tion of  his  household,  the  Old  Testament  theocracy  (iii. 

490 


THE   OLD   AND   THE   NEW   COVENANT  491 

2-5).  With  awe-inspiring  portents  the  law  was  divinely 
promulgated  on  Sinai  (xii.  18-21)  and  solemnly  ratified 
by  the  covenant-sacrifice  (ix.  18-21). 

This  teaching  resembles  that  of  Paul,  who  declares  that 
the  law,  in  itself,  is  "holy,  righteous,  and  good"  (Rom. 
vii.  12),  and  that  it  is  "glorious,"  although  its  splendor 
pales  before  the  surpassing  glory  of  the  gospel  (2  Cor. 
iii.  7-11).  The  points  of  likeness  and  of  difference  can 
be  best  exhibited  by  ascertaining  what  were  the  specific 
defects  of  the  Old  Testament  religion,  as  our  author  views 
the  matter,  and  what  the  grounds  of  its  failure  to  give 
men  a  secure  sense  of  pardon  and  of  peace  with  God. 

The  opening  words  of  the  epistle  —  iroXv/jLepco^  koI  ttoXv- 
TpoTTft)?  irdXac  6  ^eo?  XaXrjaa^  —  "in  many  parts  and  in 
many  ways,"  etc.  (i,  1),  suggest  the  relative  inferiority  of 
the  earlier  revelation.  It  was  given  fragmentarily,  by  a 
series  of  providential  dispensations,  and  was  communicated 
to  men  by  a  great  variety  of  means  and  methods.  It 
lacked  the  marks  of  complete  unity  and  finality  which 
belong  to  the  self-disclosure  which  God  has  made  in  his 
Son.  Moreover,  it  was  introduced  by  angels  whose  rank 
is  far  beneath  that  of  Christ ;  his  is  the  highest  place  of 
authority  and  dominion  at  God's  right  hand  (i.  3),  while 
they,  the  ministering  servants  of  his  people  (i.  14),  are 
bidden  to  render  him  homage  (i.  6). 

Our  author  here  avails  himself  of  an  idea  which  meets 
us  in  but  two  other  places  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts 
vii.  53;  Gal.  iii.  19) — that  of  angelic  mediation  in  tlie 
giving  of  the  law.  This  idea  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew 
Old  Testament,  but  is  probably  derived  from  the  Septua- 
gint  rendering  of  Deut.  xxxiii.  2;  "The  Lord  came  from 
the  myriads  of  holy  ones,"  that  is,  issued  forth  from  his 
heavenly  dwelling-place,  from  the  midst  of  the  great  com- 
pany of  angels  which  surrounded  his  throne.  Here  the 
Seventy  introduced  the  very  loose  rendering,  dyyeXoc  /xer 
avrov.  This  phrase  readily  lent  itself  to  the  support  of  the 
idea  which  was  so  current  in  the  later  Judaism,  that  the 
angels  were  the  agents  by  whom  the  law  was  introduced 
into  the  world.     In  the  speech  of  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  53) 


492  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   HEBREWS 

this  mediation  of  angels  is  regarded  as  heightening  the 
dignity  of  the  law  and  as  emphasizing  the  guilt  of  those 
who  transgress  it,  while  by  Paul  (Gal.  iii.  19)  it  is  used 
to  show  that  the  law  was  not  given  immediately  and 
directly  by  God,  and  was,  therefore,  inferior  to  the  gospel 
promise,  which  was  given  without  mediation  Our  author 
makes  a  similar  use  of  the  idea  and  dwells  upon  it  at 
length.  The  angels  who  introduced  the  legal  system  are 
inferior  in  rank  to  the  Son  who  is  the  author  and  theme  of 
the  gospel.  Jehovah  addresses  him  as  his  Son  par  eminence 
(i.  4,  5),  and  they  are  bidden  to  do  obeisance  to  him  when 
he  comes  in  glory  to  judgment  (i.  6).^  The  angels  may, 
indeed,  be  likened  to  the  swift  and  subtle  powers  of  nature 
(i.  7),  but  to  the  Son  is  applied  the  highest  title  of  divine 
majesty  (o  ^eo'?),  and  to  him  is  ascribed  supreme  and  uni- 
versal dominion  (i.  8  s^.).  To  no  angel  has  Jehovah  ever 
said:  "Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  till  I  make  thine  ene- 
mies thy  footstool  "  (i.  13);  it  is  only  the  Messiah  who  is 
so  addressed.  To  angels,  on  the  contrary,  is  assigned  the 
relatively  humble  position  of  acting  as  servants  and  attend- 
ants upon  those  who  become  partakers  in  the  Messianic 
salvation  (i.  14).  Since,  then,  the  agents  by  whom  the 
old  system  was  introduced  are  so  inferior  in  nature,  rank, 
and  office  to  the  Messiah,  it  follows  that  the  system  must 
be  less  complete  as  a  revelation  of  God  and  less  adequate 
to  meet  the  needs  of  mankind.  Our  author's  practical 
conclusion  is  :  Since  we  possess  a  fuller  revelation,  we 
have  a  heavier  responsibility;  for  if  God  severely  punished 
disobedience  to  the  earlier  and  less  perfect  legislation, 
with  what  strictness  will  he  treat  those  who  disregard  the 
clearer  light  of  the  gospel  (ii.  1,  2).  We  have  here  an 
example  of  the  characteristic  procedure  of  our  author. 
Each  point  which  is  established  by  argument  is  enforced 
by  an  exhortation.  Here,  accordingly,  the  order  of  thought 
is :   Since  the  gospel  is  so  superior  to  the  law  in  the  dig- 

II  refer  this  "bringing  in  of  the  first-born  into  the  world"  to  the 
parousia,  and  not  to  the  incarnation,  resurrection,  or  exaltation.  The 
reference  to  the  second  advent  is  favored  by  most  modern  interpreters, 
e.g.  Kiehm,  Moll,  LUnemann,  Weiss,  Davidson. 


THE   OLD    AND   THE   NEW    COVENANT  493 

nity  and  authority  of  its  introducing  agent,  do  you  remain 
faithful  to  him;  in  a  word,  do  not  apostatize. 

The  author's  second  argument,  designed  to  show  the 
^superiority  of  the  new  covenant  to  the  old,  is  that  Christ 
takes  rank  above  Moses,  the  great  lawgiver  of  the  Old 
Testament  system  (iii.)-  ^^  this  argument,  however, 
even  less  than  in  the  previous  one,  does  the  writer  exhibit 
his  real  philosophy  of  Old  Testament  revelation.  In  both 
these  arguments  the  primary  intention  is  to  exalt  the 
person  of  Christ,  and  the  defects  of  the  Jewish  religion, 
as  contrasted  with  Christianity,  are  only  hinted  at  so  far 
as  they  are  involved  in  the  contrast  between  the  rank  of  ^ 
Christ  and  that  of  the  angels  and  of  Moses.  Further  -^■ 
consideration  of  these  passages,  therefore,  may  best  be 
deferred  until  we  come  to  the  study  of  our  author's 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ. 

Another  mark  of  imperfection  which  belonged  to  the 
old  covenant  was  that  its  priests  were  weak  and  sinful  ; 
men  who  needed  to  offer  sacrifices  for  their  own  sins  as 
well  as  for  those  of  the  people.  The  author  graphically 
pictures  the  Old  Testament  priests  as  perpetually  perform- 
ing the  round  of  animal  offerings  ;  and  how  ineffectual 
it  all  is !  ''  Weak  and  unprofitable  "  is  his  verdict  on 
Leviticalism  (vii.  18).  Everything  about  it  is  faulty. 
Its  priests  are  erring  men  (vii.  28)  ;  its  offerings  are 
mere  dumb  animals,  whose  blood  can  never  cleanse  from 
sin  (x.  4)  ;  the  constant  repetition  of  the  sacrifices  shows 
how  unavailing  they  are,  for  if  they  were  effectual  their 
work  would  remain  (x.  1,  11.).  They  can,  indeed,  keep 
alive  the  consciousness  of  sin  (x.  3),  but  they  are  power- 
less to  purge  it  away  ;  they  are  mere  outward  symbolic 
transactions,  useful  only  as  pictorial  representations  of 
certain  truths  until  the  day  of  fuller  revelation  (ix.  10). 
Hence  the  sacrificial  system  cannot  be  final.  It  is  external 
and  symbolic,  and,  therefore,  preparatory  and  provisional. 
It  necessitates  and  prophesies  a  more  adequate  system. 
Its  representatives,  the  prophets,  discerned  its  inadequacy. 
They  spoke  of  a  new  covenant,  thereby  implying  that  the 
system  then  existing  was  old,  and  if  old,  then  destined 


494  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

soon  to  pass  away  (viii.  13).  Thus  Judaism,  conscious 
of  its  own  imperfection,  foretold  its  own  abrogation.  "  I 
will  make  a  new  covenant,"  is  Jehovah's  word  to  Israel 
(viii.  8). 

Thus  it  appears  that  our  author  holds  essentially  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  concerning  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  and 
the  prophets  in  his  own  person  and  work.  He  is  also  at 
one  with  Paul  in  regarding  the  law  as  a  temporary  insti- 
tute designed  to  serve  a  providential  purpose  in  prepara- 
tion for  the  gospel.  But  we  have  already  followed  him 
far  enough  to  see  that  he  has  quite  an  original  view  of 
the  nature  and  relations  of  the  two  systems.  For  Paul, 
indeed,  the  law  is  a  rudimentary  system  of  religion  (Gal. 
iv.  3,  9),  as  it  is  for  our  author  (vii.  16,  18).  Both  em- 
phasize its  outward  or  cosmic  character. ^  BXit  the  em- 
phasis is  widely  different  in  the  two  cases.  [The  idea  is 
quite  differently  carried  out  and  applied  h%  the  two 
writers.  For  Paul  the  inadequacy  of  the  law  is  not  so 
much  due  to  any  inherent  weakness  as  to  its  incapacity 
to  enable  man  to  obey  the  will  of  God.  The  law  is 
"  weak,"  but  it  is  weak  "  through  the  flesh  "  Qha  r?}?  aap- 
k6^^  Rom.  viii.  2),  that  is,  unable  to  overcome  the  resist- 
ance to  its  demands  which  is  made  by  the  power  of  sin 
dwelling  in  the  flesh.  Paul  would  never  characterize  the 
law  as  carnal  (crdpKivo^^  vii.  16)  or  as  consisting  of  "  carnal 
commandments "  (^Bi/caLco/jLara  aapKo^,  ix.  10).  For  our 
author,  however,  the  legal  system  is  inherently,  and  by 
reason  of  its  external  character,  weak  and  unprofitable 
(vii.  18).  It  can  "make  nothing  perfect "  {v.  19)  because 
it  consists  of  a  series  of  outward  and  morally  ineffectual 
transactions.  It  cannot  reconcile  men  to  God ;  it  cannot 
cleanse  the  heart  from  sin  or  give  peace  to  the  conscience  ; 
it  cannot,  therefore,  accomplish  that  perfecting  (reXe/coo-t?, 
vii.  11)  of  man,  that  placing  of  him  in  right  relations  of 
fellowship/nnd  likeness  to  God,  which  is  the  ideal  of 
religion,  f  The  difference  between  our  author  and  Paul 
at  this  poi'Rt  is  due,  as  has  been  mentioned,  to  the  fact 

1  Paul :  ra  a-Toixeta  tov  K6(r/j.ov  (Gal.  iv.  3).  Hebrews:  v6/xos  evToXijs 
aapKlvrjs  (vii.  16)  ;  diKatii/xaTa  (rap/cos  (ix.  10)  ;  to  ayiou  KO(XfX(.Kbv  (ix.  1). 


THE   OLD    AND   THE   NEW    COVENANT  495 

that  the  former  views  the  law  in  its  ceremonial,  the  latter 
in  its  ,^iJM.<eal,  aspects.  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  law  is  a ' 
corollary  of  his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  ;  our 
author's  is  a  corollary  of  his  doctrine  of  the  perfection  of  I 
Christ's  sacrifice.  The  two  views  are  quite  different,  butj 
they  are  not  incompatible.  The  contrast  between  the  two) 
dispensations  is  most  strikingly  exhibited  under  the  cate^ 
gories  of  type  and  reality,  shadow  and  substance,  and  the 
like,  which  were  probably  adopted  from  the  vocabulary  or 
Alexandrian  philosophy. 

According  to  the  conception  of  our  author,  the  priestly 
rSgime  belongs  to  the  realm  of  the  lower,  the  external,  the 
pictorial ;  while  the  work  of  Christ  belongs  to  the  world 
of  abiding  and  heavenly  realities.  The  sacrificial  rites  of 
Judaism  are  a  "  copy  and  shadow  of  the  heavenly  things  " 
(vTTohei'yixa  Koi  (jKia  twv  iirovpavrnv,  viii.  5),  the  pictured 
semblances  of  their  spiritual  and  eternal  counterpart 
which  is  embodied  in  the  work  of  Christ.  They  bear 
a  relation  to  their  archetypes  like  that  of  the  Mosaic 
tabernacle  in  the  wilderness  to  the  divine  idea  which  was 
disclosed  to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai  (viii.  5).  This  taber- 
nacle was  a  "  cosmic  sanctuary  "  (^ajtov  Koo-fjLL/cov,  ix.  1),  a 
visible,  earthly  symbol  and  representation  of  the  immedi- 
ate presence  of  God  where  Christ  is  exercising  his  minis- 
try for  our  salvation.  It  was  a  "  parable  "  (^Trapa^oXrj, 
ix.  9),  or  similitude,  by  which,  in  the  pre-Christian  age, 
certain  religious  truths  were  pictured  forth.  Its  various 
appointments  were  "  copies  of  the  things  in  the  heavens  " 
(ix.  23),  and  its  most  holy  place  is  an  "  antitype  of  the 
true"  (ix.  24),  an  imitation  of  the  ideal  —  heaven  itself. 
The  author  sums  up  his  argument,  under  this  head,  as 
follows  :  "  For  the  law  having  a  shadow  of  good  things  to 
come  (a-KLCL  tmv  fieWovrcov  ayaOayv^^  not  the  very  image  of 
the  things  (^ovk  avrrjv  rrjv  el/cova  rcov  Trpay/JLarcov),  can  never^ 

1  I  follow  the  reading  diivarat  here,  which  makes  the  subject  6  vd/xos 
(so  Bleek,  Tischendorf,  Liinemann,  Weiss,  Farrar),  instead  of  8vvavTai 
(W.  and  H.,  11.  V.),  although  the  latter  is  more  strongly  supported  by 
external  evidence.  On  this  reading  the  subject  would  be  "the  priests" 
understood.     The  idea  is  essentially  the  same  in  either  case. 


496  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBKEWS 

with  the  same  sacrifices  year  by  year,  which  they  offer 
continually,  make  perfect  (reXetwcrai)  them  that  draw 
nigh"  (x.  1). 

What  is  the  nature  of  this  contrast  between  "  shadow  " 
(a-KLo)  and  "image"  (^eIkcov')?  It  is  to  be  noticed  that 
three  things  are  here  distinguished :  the  shadow,  the 
image,  and  the  good  things  (a<yada).  The  law  has  the 
shadow  (o-KLa)\  the  gospel  has  the  very  image  (elK(i)v)  of 
the  good  things.  The  two  systems  are  thus  contrasted 
as  containing,  respectively,  a  less  and  a  more  adequate 
embodiment  of  divine  truth.  2/tm  means  a  meagre  out- 
line ;  eiKdiv  an  exact  representation.  A  rude  pencil  sketch 
of  a  man,  or  his  shadow  cast  on  a  wall,  would  be  a  cr/cta, 
while  a  lifelike  statue  representing  him  would  be  an  el/ccov^ 
Both  are  relative  terms,  and  their  difference  is,  primarily, 
one  of  degree,  though  it  may  pass,  as  it  does  here,  into  a 
difference  in  kind.  In  the  view  of  some  the  contrast  is 
derived  from  art.''^  In  any  case,  it  represents  the  priestly 
system  as  a  rude  and  imperfect  expression  of  heavenly 
truth,  —  outward,  symbolic,  pictorial,  —  while  it  describes 
the  gospel  as  adequately  exhibiting  to  us  the  true  nature 
of  the  divine  realities.  These  realities  constitute,  for 
our  author,  the  invisible,  intelligible  world.  We  cannot 
directly  contemplate  them ;  we  know  them  as  they  are 
disclosed  to  us ;  the  law  vaguely  represented  them ;  the 
gospel  adequately  discloses  them.  We  see,  then,  that  the 
contrast  here  drawn  is  not  exactly  that  between  shadow 
and  substance,  although  those  terms  loosely  express  its 
practical  import ;  it  is  a  contrast  between  two  widely  dif- 
fering representations  of  the  "  substance,"  the  heavenl}^ 
"  good  things,"  of  grace  and  salvation. 

1  "  The  terms  o-klol  and  eUdv  are  fitly  chosen  to  convey  an  idea  of  the 
comparative  merits  of  Leviticalism  and  Christianity.  A  a-Ktd  is  a  rude 
outline  ;  an  cIkivv  is  an  exact  image.  But  a  shadow  is,  further,  a  likeness 
separate  from  the  body  which  casts  it ;  whereas  the  image  denoted  by 
elKwv  is  inseparable  from  the  substance,  and  here,  without  doubt,  stands 
for  it."    Bruce,  The  Expositor,  Fourth  Series,  Vol.  I.  p.  437. 

2  So,  e.g.  Westcott:  "The  word  (cr/cid)  contains  one  of  the  very  few 
illustrations  which  are  taken  from  art  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
'  shadow '  is  the  dark,  outlined  figure  cast  by  the  object,  contrasted  with 
the  complete  representation  (elKUJv)  produced  by  the  help  of  color  and 
solid  mass."     The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  304. 


THE   OLD   AND   THE   NEW    COVENANT  497 

We  have  now  reviewed  the  principal  terms  in  which  our 
author  presents  his  view  of  the  relation  of  the  two  cove- 
nants. His  doctrine  of  the  superiority  of  the  new  to  the 
old  is,  to  us,  very  familiar  and  commonplace.  But  we 
must  remember  that  he  was  writing  to  people  who  were 
still  enamoured  of  the  ancient  order  and  who  were  still  dis- 
posed to  sew  the  gospel  of  Christ  as  a  patch  upon  the  old 
garment  of  Judaism.  His  arguments  are  not  needful  to 
convince  us ;  indeed,  many  of  them  would  have  little  con- 
vincing force  for  the  modern  mind.  But  for  the  mind  of 
his  age  they  must  have  been  forcible.  The  demonstration 
from  the  Old  Testament  that  a  higher  dignity  is  there 
accorded  to  the  Messiah  than  to  the  angels  or  Moses,  the 
description  of  the  wearisome  round  of  ritual  sacrifices,  — 
altars  dripping  with  blood,  oft-repeated  atonements  made 
by  sinful  priests,  which  still  left  the  conscience  burdened 
with  guilt,  —  and  the  contrast  of  all  this  with  Christ's  will- 
ing and  obedient  sacrifice  of  his  holy  life,  must  have  pro- 
duced a  powerful  effect  on  the  minds  of  the  readers.  And 
justly  so ;  for,  making  all  due  allowance  for  the  peculiar 
form  of  the  author's  interpretations  and  arguments,  his 
appeal  is  marked  by  a  dignity,  eloquence,  and  lofty  spirit- 
ual tone  which  must  have  given  it  a  persuasive  power  for 
those  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  and  which,  ever  since, 
have  made  this  anonymous  writing,  of  the  historical  set- 
ting and  relations  of  which  we  know  so  little,  one  of  the 
literary  treasures  of  the  Church. 

2k 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  MEDIATOR 

The  two  most  elaborate  biblico-theological  treatises  on 
our  epistle  —  those  of  Riehm  and  Menegoz  —  reach  dia- 
metrically opposite  conclusions  concerning  its  doctrine 
of  the  person  of  Christ.  Riehm  holds  that  the  epistle 
ascribes  divine  attributes  to  the  Son  and  explicitly  teaches 
his  preexistence  and  eternity;^  while  Menegoz  holds  that 
the  author  regards  him,  not  as  divine,  but  as  a  unique, 
created  being,  who  became  incarnate  by  natural  genera- 
tion and  achieved  perfection  by  discipline  and  suffering  — 
a  view  closely  resembling  the  doctrine  of  Arianism.^  We 
must  make  our  decision  between  these  two  interpretations 
by  carefully  reviewing  the  relevant  passages. 

The  author's  doctrine  of  the  person  of  the  Mediator  is 
developed  quite  incidentally ;  but  it  is  not  on  that  account 
less  fundamental  to  his  whole  view  of  the  new  covenant. 
In  the  effort  to  secure  the  practical  end  which  his  epistle 
contemplates,  he  begins  by  exalting  before  his  readers  the 
incomparable  person  who  is  "  the  captain  ^  of  their  salva- 
tion" (ii.  10).  But  very  soon  the  purpose  of  his  argu- 
ment requires  him  to  dwell  on  the  humiliation  of  the  Son 
and  his  perfect  contact  and  sympathy  with  men.     Let  us 

1  Lehrhegriff  des  Hehraerbriefs,  p.  269  sq. 

2  La  Theologie  de  VlSpitre  aux  Hebreux,  ch.  i. 

3  It  is  a  disputed  question  whether  dpxvy^^  here  and  in  xii.  2  bears  its 
primary  meaning,  leader  or  captain,  or  its  secondary  meaning,  author  or 
originator.  I  prefer  the  former  meaning  in  both  cases.  R.  V.  renders 
"author"  in  both  passages;  A.  V.,  "captain"  in  ii.  10  and  "author" 
in  xii.  2  —  renderings  which  Thayer's  Lexicon  exactly  reverses.  Similar 
ambiguity  attends  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  phrases,  dpxvyos  rijs 
^oirjs  and  dpxvyos  Kal  aoiT-qp  in  Acts  iii.  15,  and  v.  31  respectively,  the 
only  other  places  where  the  word  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  Here, 
too,  the  word  seems  to  have  its  primary  meaning  (so  R.  V.  and  A.  V.). 

498 


THE  MEDIATOR  499 

start  from  this  point  in  the  study  of  his  doctrine  and  seek 
to  determine  to  what  length  the  author  carries  out  the 
correlative  idea  —  that  of  the  Son's  exaltation  and  dignity. 

The  writer  is  well  acquainted  with  the  experiences  of 
the  historical  person  Jesus,  who  lived,  sorrowed,  and  suf- 
fered here  on  earth.  He  knows  to  what  tribe  he  belonged 
(vii.  14),  that  he  wrought  miracles  (ii.  3,  4),  passed 
through  a  course  of  temptation,  and  was  rejected  and  ill 
treated  at  the  hands  of  sinful  men  (xii.  3).  The  scenes 
of  Gethsemane  and  Golgotha  are  vividly  present  to  his 
imagination  (v.  7  ;  xii.  2  ;  xiii.  12).  The  resurrection 
and  glorification  of  Christ  are  to  him  familiar  truths  (xiii. 
20  ;  i.  2,  3).  He  emphasizes  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  and 
its  relation  to  his  saving  work  when  he  says  :  "  For  such 
a  high  priest  became  us,  holy,  guileless,  undefiled,  separated 
from  sinners,  and  made  higher  than  the  heavens  "  (vii.  26). 

Our  author  lays  stress  upon  the  genuine  humanity  of 
Jesus.  He  assumed  human  flesh  and  blood  (ii.  14)  and 
was  in  all  things  made  like  to  his  brethren  (ii.  17).  He 
made  common  cause  with  the  men  whom  he  had  come 
to  save  ;  he  confessed  himself  their  brother  and,  along 
with  them,  acknowledged  his  dependence  upon  God  (ii. 
11-13).  He  had  a  genuine  human  development.  He 
grew  and  learned  in  consequence  of  his  earthly  experience 
(v.  8).  His  life  was  characterized  by  such  human  virtues 
as  obedience  (x.  7),  humility  (v.  5),  piety  (v.  7),  and 
fidelity  (iii.  2).  The  writer  does  not  hesitate  to  represent 
him  as  the  chief  example  of  faith  in  God.  When  the 
Messiah  calls  men  his  brethren,  he  announces  his  perfect 
community  of  life  with  them  as  consisting,  in  part,  in  the 
common  trust  which  he  and  they  must  exercise  in  God 
(ii.  13).  The  author  calls  upon  his  readers  to  follow  after 
the  "  leader  and  perfecter  "  of  their  faith,  ^  who  has  illus- 
trated his  trust  in  God  and  his  pursuit  of  his  heavenly 
vocation  in  a  life  which  is  the  perfect  pattern  of  fidelity 
(xii.  2,  3).  Thus  for  our  author  Christ  is  represented  not 
only  as  the  object  of  faith,  but  as  the  perfect  example  of  it. 
By  his  faithful  performance  of  his  divinely  appointed  task 

1  See  previous  note  on  dpxvy^^- 


500  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

and  by  the  discipline  of  his  sufferings  he  was  perfected  for 
his  redeeming  work  (v.  8,  9).  He  experienced  a  normal, 
moral  development  in  which  through  temptation  and  dis- 
cipline he  achieved  a  positive  perfection  of  life.  This 
development  was,  at  every  stage,  sinless  ;  but  it  moved 
forward  from  the  imperfections  or  innocence  which  belongs 
to  the  earlier  stages  of  a  moral  career,  to  that  completeness 
which  can  only  be  achieved  by  the  processes  of  testing  and 
struggle.  The  life  of  Jesus  on  earth  was  genuinely  human, 
but  sinless ;  its  progress  was  not,  as  in  the  case  of  other 
men,  a  gradual  elimination  of  the  evil,  but  a  constantly 
increasing  realization  of  the  good. 

But  the  perfecting  of  Jesus  for  his  work  by  means  of 
his  earthly  experience  does  not  express  the  whole  of  the 
author's  thought  respecting  his  career  as  Messiah  and 
Saviour.  He  stooped  to  become  "a  little  lower  than  the 
angels  "  (ii.  9),  and  humbled  himself  to  endure  the  shame- 
ful death  of  the  cross  ;  but  this,  in  turn,  proved  to  be  the 
way  to  his  heavenly  glory  and  crown.  "  Because  of  the 
suffering  of  death  we  behold  him  crowned  with  glory 
and  honor"  (ii.  9).^  His  exaltation  to  heavenly  power 
and  glory  is  strikingly  emphasized.  God  has  appointed 
him  heir  of  all  things  (i.  2)  ^  and  has  assigned  to  him  the 
seat  of  honor  and  authority  in  his  Kingdom  (i.  3).  The 
angels  are  bidden  to  worship  him  when  he  shall  come  again 
(i.  6).     His  victory  is  assured  by  Jehovah's  decree  : 

"  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand, 
Till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool"  (i.  13). 

1  "With  most  modern  interpreters  I  connect  8ia  rb  irad-qixa  k.t.\.  with 
iareipavioixhov  (R.  V.),  instead  of  with  rjXaTTojfjLivov  (A.  V.).  Bruce  (Ex- 
positor, Third  Series,  Vol.  VIII.,  p.  372  sq.)  gives  to  Slci  here  the  force  of  ei'j, 
and  understands  the  passage  to  mean  that  Jesus  was  crowned  for  death, 
that  is,  accorded  the  high  honor  and  privilege  of  dying  for  the  salvation 
of  men. 

2  In  the  view  of  many  scholars  this  verse  refers  to  God's  pre-temporal 
purpose,  and  not  to  the  glorification  of  Christ  (so  Bengel,  Bleek,  Westcott, 
Llinemann,  and  Dwight).  I  have  assigned  to  it  a  historical  sense  hke  that 
of  the  phrase  :  "  Sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high,"  in 
the  next  verse  (so  Tholuck,  Delitzsch,  DeWette,  Moll,  Riehm,  Kendrick, 
and  Davidson) .  If  the  former  interpretation  be  adopted,  the  passage  would 
simply  fall  into  the  category  of  those  which  refer  to  the  preexistence  of 
the  Son,  to  be  considered  later. 


THE   MEDIATOR  501 

To  his  authority  has  been  subjected  the  new  order  of 
things  in  the  coming  age  of  Messianic  blessedness  (ii.  5), 
and  nothing  has  been  left  outside  the  scope  of  this  sub- 
jection (ii.  8).  He  is  not,  like  Moses,  a  mere  servant  in 
God's  household  (iii.  2,  5);  but  as  a  son  he  has  been  set 
over  the  house  with  full  authority,  that  is,  made  supreme 
in  God's  Kingdom  on  earth  (iii.  6). 

Our  author  dwells  with  special  fondness  upon  the  idea 
that  Christ,  now  exalted  to  heaven,  is  perpetually  minis- 
tering on  behalf  of  his  people  on  earth.  He  has  passed 
through  the  heavens  to  the  immediate  presence  of  God 
where  he  now  fulfils,  for  our  salvation,  his  high  priestly 
office  (iv.  14).  This  lofty  position  he  did  not  assume, 
but  God  appointed  him  to  it  (v.  5).  It  belongs  to  him 
b}^  virtue  of  his  own  inherent,  indissoluble  life  (vii.  16). 
Hence  his  high  office  is  perpetual  and  changeless :  '^  Be- 
cause he  abideth  for  ever,  he  hath  his  priesthood  unchange- 
able "  (vii.  24).  The  solemn  oath  of  God  has  appointed 
to  this  function  him  who  is  "  a  Son,  perfected  for  ever- 
more" (vii.  28).  In  heaven  he  continues  to  exercise  the 
functions  of  a  faithful  helper  and  heavenly  friend  to  his 
people,  "the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever"  (xiii.  8). 

Such  is  the  writer's  conception  of  the  position  to  which 
Christ  was  elevated  after  the  completion  of  his  work  on 
earth.  The  question  now  arises :  Is  there  in  the  epistle 
any  corresponding  idea  of  the  Son's  dignity  and  glory 
previous  to  his  earthly  manifestation  ?  Did  Christ  come 
from  heaven  to  earth  as  Avell  as  ascend  from  earth  to 
heaven  ?  We  can  best  answer  the  question  by  reviewing 
again  the  earlier  chapters  of  the  epistle. 

In  contrast  to  the  prophets,  through  whom  God  revealed 
himself  in  olden  time,  stands  one  who  is  a  Son  (i.  2). 
The  word  is  used  without  the  article  in  order  to  accentu- 
ate the  superior  character  and  dignity  of  Christ  as  com- 
pared with  the  prophets:  "One  who  is  no  less  than  a 
Son"  (cf.  vii.  28).  Of  this  Son  the  writer  makes  two 
affirmations  :  first,  the  one  already  noticed,  that  God  has 
made  him  "heir  of  all  things,"  Lord  of  the  world  (cf.  i.  8; 
ii.  5) ;  and,  second,  that  through  his  agency  or  mediation 


502  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

God  created  the  world.i  The  logical  relation  of  the  two 
affirmations,  if  the  first  one  is  understood  as  referring  to 
Christ's  glorification,  is  that  his  installation  in  his  world 
dominion  rests  upon  his  original  relation  to  creation ;  if, 
on  the  other  hand,  bv  eOrjfcev  KXrjpovofjLov  be  referred  to 
God's  eternal  purpose,  the  second  assertion  would  rest 
upon  the  first. ^  In  either  case  Christ  is  described  as  the 
coefficient  agent  of  God  in  creation. 

The  three  following  phrases  (i.  3)  continue  the  descrip- 
tion of  this  Son  whose  pre-mundane  existence  has  already 
been  affirmed.  They  must  all  refer,  therefore,  to  what 
he  inherently  and  essentially  is.  He  is  the  effulgence  or 
outshining  of  God's  glory  (^cnravyacr/Jia  ttj^  ^o?^?),  the 
impress  of  his  substance  (^xapaKTrjp  r^j?  vTroaraaeo)^)^  and 
the  sustainer  of  the  world  (^cfyepcov  ra  irdvTo)  by  his  all- 
powerful  word.  He  is  one  in  whom  God's  glory  is  per- 
fectly reflected,  and  in  whom  his  essence  is  perfectly 
expressed,  and,  as  such,  his  will  supports  the  order  of 
the  world  which  he  has  constituted.^  We  have  here  a 
striking  parallel  to  Paul's  Christology  in  Colossians,  where 
the  readers  are  described  as  rescued  from  the  realm  of 
darkness  and  transferred  into  the  Kingdom  of  God's  dear 
Son,  who  is  the  image,  the  exact  counterpart  (el/ccov^  of 
the  invisible  God,  antedating  all  creation,  of  which,  in 
the  most  emphatic  way,  he  is  described  as  the  originator 
and  sustainer  (Col.  i.  15-17).  The  correspondence  of 
')(^apaKTr}p  with  el/coiv,  of  eiroirjcrev  rou?  alcava^  with  iv  avrca 
i/cTiaOrj  ra  Trdvra,  and  of  ^epwv  rd  irdvTa  with  rd  irdvra  iv 
avTw  crvve(TTr]K€v  is  especially  noticeable. 

A  similar  conception  of  Christ's  preexistence  emerges, 

1  Literally  "the  ages"  (toi>s  dtwras)  here  used  to  denote  the  contents 
of  time  and  space,  equivalent  to  -n-avTuiv  (v.  1)  and  rd  irdvTa  (v.  3).  The 
same  use  of  alCjpes  is  found  in  xi.  3. 

2  See  note  on  p.  500. 

3  For  the  discussion  of  the  precise  meaning  to  be  attached  to  atraiyacrixa 
and  x'^P^i^'^VP  here,  I  must  refer  to  the  critical  commentaries.  They  are 
both  figurative  words,  and  we  should  beware  of  hinging  great  doctrinal 
questions  too  much  upon  them.  For  our  purpose  it  is  sufficient  to  note 
that,  taken  in  connection  with  their  context,  they  express  the  unique  and 
incomparable  relation  of  the  preexistent  Son  of  God. 


THE   MEDIATOR  503 

here  and  there,  in  the  course  of  the  argument.  He  is  the 
one  who  built  or  arranged  (o  Karao-Kevda-a^^  the  house  of 
God  (iii.  3),  that  is,  established  the  Old  Testament  system 
and  Avas  the  authoritative  agent  in  its  development  (q/*.  1 
Cor.  X.  4).  One  point  in  the  author's  use  of  Melchizedek 
as  a  type  of  Christ  is  to  emphasize  not  only  the  perpetuity 
of  Christ's  priesthood,  but  the  eternity  of  his  person. 
The  independence  of  Melchizedek's  priesthood  of  all 
human  conditions  and  relations  (vii.  3)  suggests  the  still 
higher  character  of  his  saving  activity,  whose  work  is  based 
upon  his  own  absolute  life  (vii.  16).  There  can  hardly 
be  a  doubt  that  the  writer  means  to  assert  that  the 
mysterious  priest-king  who,  so  far  as  the  validity  of  his 
office  is  concerned,  has  "  neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end 
of  life"  (vii.  3),  is  "made  like  unto  the  Son  of  God" 
because  the  Son  is  regarded  as  a  pre-temporal,  eternal 
Being.  1  We  do  not,  however,  find  in  the  epistle  the  later 
theological  conception  of  the  "  eternal  generation  "  of  the 
Son.2 

Two  other  passages  remain  to  be  considered.  In  i.  8  the 
author  quotes  Ps.  xlv.  7 ;  "  Thy  throne,  O  God  (o  0e6<; ; 
Heb.,  Elohim)^  is  for  ever  and  ever,"  etc.,  as  being  spoken 
by  Jehovah  to  the  Messiah,  and  in  i.  10  he  uses  in  a 
similar  manner  Ps.  cii.  25  (after  the  Septuagint) :  "  Thou, 
Lord  (^Kvpie)^  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation  of 
the  earth,"  etc.,  which  he  also  understands  as  addressed  to 
Christ.  Interpreters  are  divided  on  the  question  whether 
Elohim  in  the  original  refers  to  an  Israelitish  king  (after 
the  analogy  of  Ps.  Ixxxii.  6  ;  cf.  Jn.  x.  34,  35),  or  to 
Jehovah.  For  our  purpose  it  makes  no  practical  differ- 
ence, since  our  author  knew  only  the  Septuagint  whose 

1  So  Beysclilag,  K  T.  Tlieol.  II.  308  (Bk.  V.  ch.  iii.  §  3),  who,  how- 
ever, regards  this  "higher  Christology  "  as  a  poetizing  personification 
characteristic  of  "naive  Biblical  realism." 

2  Interpreters  are  greatly  divided  as  to  the  reference  in  a-n/xepov  ye- 
yivvr}Ka  in  the  quotation  made  in  i.  5  and  v.  5.  It  is  variously  referred  to 
the  incarnation,  baptism,  resurrection,  and  ascension  of  Christ,  and  to 
eternity.  With  De  Wette,  Riehm,  and  Dwight  I  hold  that  the  word 
a-nfjL€pov  is  not  to  be  pressed  into  any  definite  time-reference  in  the  appli- 
cation of  the  quotation. 


504  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

language,  including  the  title  6  ^eo9,  he  freely  applies  to 
Christ.  The  second  Psalm  passage  in  question  clearly  re- 
fers to  Jehovah,  although  there  is  no  title  in  the  original 
corresponding  to  Kvpio<;  in  the  Septuagint.  Our  author's 
use  of  the  Old  Testament,  here  as  elsewhere,  disregards 
the  primary  sense  and  historical  setting  of  the  passage 
which  he  uses.  But  it  is  not  what  Calvin  called  the  pia 
deflectio  of  Old  Testament  language  from  its  original 
meaning  by  our  autlw,-  "iDut^-t^le"^^  of  that  lan- 

guage —  its  meaning  for  him  — ^;^ith  which  we  are  now 
concerned.  He  mudt  have  hpld  a  view  of  Christ's  person 
which  made  it  seem  natural  to  apply  to  him  the  titles  of 
Kvpio^  and  6  ^€09^  —  titles  with  which  he  was  perfectly 
familiar  as  designations  of  supreme  Deity.  At  the  same 
time  and  in  the  same  connection  (i.  9),  lie  distinguishes 
Christ  from  God  by  speaking  of  his  God :  ''  Therefore 
God,  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee,"  etc.  For  our  author, 
therefore,  Christ  must  have  been  distinguished  from  God, 
the  fons  et  origo  of  divinity,  but,  at  the  same  time,  must 
have  been  an  eternal  Being,  sharing  the  divine  nature  and 
attributes.  His  doctrine  is,  in  substance,  the  same  "higher 
Christology"  which  we  find  in  Paul  and  John.  Jesus 
Christ  is,  in  the  strict  sense,  divine,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
personally  distinct  from  God,  alike  in  his  historic  manifes- 
tation, his  glorified  life  in  heaven,  and  his  eternal  preex- 
istence  and  activity. 

Beyschlag  has  subjected  the  Christology  of  our  epistle 
to  the  same  treatment  which  he  applied  to  that  of  Paul. 
He  admits  that  the  author  regarded  Christ  as  an  eter- 
nal person,  whose  almighty  word  supports  the  universe, 
but  holds  that  he  was  able  to  entertain  this  view  only 
"because  his  thought,  like  all  the  thought  of  antiquity, 
was  not  directed  to  the  idea  of  personality  and  its  precon- 
ditions," 2  and  that  the  opinion  in  question  had  no  basis 

1  No  special  significance  attaches  to  the  use  of  the  article  here.  The 
writer  quoted  the  text  as  he  found  it  in  the  lxx.  In  an  Alexandrian,  like 
our  author,  we  should  rather  expect  that  Christ  would  be  designated  by 
the  generic  dios,  in  distinction  from  6  Bios,  as  in  Philo  and  the  prologue  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  (i.  1,  2). 

2  N.  T.  Theol.  II.  313  (Bk.  V.  ch.  iii.  §  5). 


THE   MEDIATOR  505 

either  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  himself  or  in  that  of  the 
primitive  apostles.  In  fact,  Beyschlag  finds  an  insoluble 
contradiction  between  the  author's  description  of  Jesus' 
human  life  and  his  higher  Christology.  He  regards  the 
latter  as  having  been  useful  in  heightening  the  apprecia- 
tion of  Christ  at  the  time  of  writing,  but  as  without  value 
or  truth  for  us.  As  I  am  here  concerned  with  the  expo- 
sition, and  not  with  the  defence,  of  our  author's  teaching, 
I  will  only  say  concerning  Beyschlag's  view  that  it  as- 
sumes: (1)  that  the  effort  of  himself  and  others  to  explain 
away  the  teaching  concerning  Christ's  preexistence  in 
the  Gospels  has  been  successful ;  (2)  that  both  Paul  and 
John,  as  well  as  our  author,  were  led  by  defective  ideas 
of  personality  into  the  mistake  of  hypostatizing  an  idea ; 
and  (3)  that  preexistent  glory  and  a  lowly  human  life  in 
the  flesh  are  mutually  exclusive.  These  are,  to  say  the 
least,  disputable  assumptions.  For  myself,  I  doubt  them, 
each  and  all,  and,  therefore,  am  not  convinced  by  the 
argument  which  rests  upon  them. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   HIGH  PRIESTHOOD   OF   CHRIST 

COuR  author  prefaces  his  discussion  of  the  high  priest- 
ood  of  Christ  by  a  sketch  of  the  essentials  of  the  high 
priestly  office  (v.  1-9).  These  are  two  :  first,  the  priest 
who  will  minister  on  behalf  of  men  must  himself  be  a 
man  ;  he  must  be  able  to  enter  with  full  sympathy  into 
the  sins  and  sorrows  of  mankind ;  second,  he  must  not 
assume  his  office,  but  must  be  divinely  appointed  to  it. 
Jesus  fulfils  both  these  conditions.  He  can  be  "  touched 
with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities  "  (iv.  15),  for  he  has 
undergone  a  truly  human  experience  of  suffering  and 
trial  by  which  he  himself  achieved  his  moral  victory  over 
sin,  and  was  fitted  to  be  the  perfect  Redeemer  (v.  7-9). 
He  fulfils  the  second  condition  also,  for  he  did  not ''  glorify 
himself  to  be  made  a  high  priest,"  but  he  who  proclaimed 
Ihim  his  Son,  that  is,  God,  declared  him  "  a  priest  for  ever 
after  the  order  of  Melchizedek"  (v.  5,  6).  But  if,  in 
these  respects,  Christ  resembled  the  Old  Testament  priests, 
he  also  differed  from  them.  They  were  sinful ;  he  was  '^(^T 
sinless.  nThey  must  offer  sacrifice  for  themselves  ;  he  'g 
makes  his  offering  solely  for  others.  -They  served  in  a 
temporary  sanctuary  made  with  hands'^;  he  has  passed 
through  the  skies  and  now  ministers  on  our  behalf  in 
heaven  itself,  fulfilling  an  office  which  is  changeless  and 
perpetual. 

After  the  manner  of  Philo,  our  author  allegorizes  the 
brief  history  of  Melchizedek,  the  priest-king,  as  given  in 
Genesis  (xiv.  18-20),  and  draws  a  parallel  between  his 
priesthood  and  that  of  Christ  (vii.  1-10).  He  finds  a 
special  significance  in  the  name  Melchizedek,  "  king  of 
righteousness,"  and  in  the  name  of  his  residence,  Salem, 

506 


THE   HIGH   PRIESTHOOD    OF   CHRIST  507 

meaning  "  peace."  The  dignity  of  his  office  is  shown  in 
the  fact  that  the  great  patriarch  paid  tithes  to  him,  as  to 
a  superior,  and  in  the  further  fact  that  he  appears  sud- 
denly on  the  stage  of  the  Old  Testament  history  —  a  fully 
authorized  priest,  as  if  by  some  inherent  or  divine  right. 
Nothing  is  said  of  his  descent,  nor  even  of  his  birth  or 
death ;  he  simply  stands  forth  in  his  priestly  character, 
dependent  upon  no  tribal  connection  or  outward  relations 
whatever.  In  this  absoluteness  of  his  priesthood  Mel- 
chizedek  stands  in  contrast  with  the  Levitical  priests  and 
is  "  made  like  unto  the  Son  of  God  "  (vii.  3).  Indeed,  his 
office  is  more  directly  shown  to  be  superior  to  theirs. 
When  Abraham  paid  tithes  to  him,  the  whole  priestly 
tribe  of  Levi  did,  as  it  were,  pay  him  honor,  because 
Abraham's  act  may  be  regarded  as  representative  and  as 
logically  including  the  homage  of  his  descendants  (vii.  9, 
10).  Since,  now,  Melchizedek's  priesthood  is  so  superior 
to  that  of  the  Aaronic  priests,  how  much  more  superior 
must  be  the  priesthood  of  Christ  who  is  the  antitype  of 
the  royal  priest. 

From  this  general  conception  of  Christ's  independent 
and  perpetual  priesthood  the  author  now  deduces  several 
conclusions  (vii.  11  sq.').  One  of  these  is,  that  the  very 
fact  of  the  rise  of  a  new  priesthood  is  a  proof  of  the 
inadequacy  of  the  Levitical  system.  For  if  this  system 
could  have  accomplished  that  perfecting  of  man's  rela- 
tions with  God  which  is  sought  in  sacrifice,  it  would 
thereby  have  proved  itself  sufficient  and  would  have  con- 
tinued in  operation.  But,  as  matter  of  fact,  it  has  been 
superseded  by  a  priesthood,  not  after  the  order  of  Aaron, 
but  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek.  This  is  proof  of 
its  imperfection  (vii.  11).  Now  for  our  author  the 
priestly  cultus  is  the  very  centre  and  soul  of  the  Old 
Testament  religion.  Hence  he  argues  that  a  change  in 
the  priesthood  involves  a  change  in  the  whole  legal  sys- 
tem (vii.  12).  With  the  appearance  of  the  new  priest, 
whose  office  rests  upon  his  own  indissoluble  life  (vii.  16), 
the  old  order  disappears,  a  new  way  of  access  to  God  is 
opened,  and  a  new  hope  is  born  in  the  hearts  of  those 


508  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

who  draw  nigh  to   God  through  this  "new  and  living 
way"  (vii.  19;  x.  20). 

Another  corollary  of  the  perpetuity  and  independence 
of  Christ's  priesthood  is  that  his  office  is  unique  and  in- 
comparable. In  the  Old  Testament  system  there  were 
many  priests ;  under  the  new  and  better  covenant  there  is 
but  one,  and  his  work  is  not  interrupted  by  death  but  is 
continuous  and  constant.  Hence  he  can  effectually  save 
those  who  avail  themselves  of  his  mediation,  since  "  he 
ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them"  (vii.  23-25). 
It  is,  indeed,  true  that  the  pure  and  holy  high  priest  has 
offered  up  his  sacrifice  once  for  all  when  he  died  upon  the 
cross  (vii.  27 ;  ix.  26 ,  x.  12)  ;  but  our  author  also  attrib- 
utes to  him  a  perpetual  priestly  activity  in  heaven  on 
behalf  of  mankind.  This  intercession,  or  appearance  on 
behalf  of  men  (eVrfY^az^ett'  virep  avrcov,  vii.  25),  is  a 
priestly  function.  Christ  is  in  the  heavens  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  in  the  character  of  a  priest  (viii.  1).  "He 
abideth  a  priest  continually"  (vii.  3).  Our  author  thus 
combines  the  conception  of  Christ's  single  and  final  sac- 
rifice on  earth  with  that  of  a  continuous  and  perpetual 
atoning  work  carried  forward  in  the  upper  sanctuary,  the 
immediate  presence  of  God.  The  relation  between  these 
two  conditions  he  does  not  define,  or  even  consider.  We 
are  left  free  to  harmonize  and  unify  them  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  Christ's  saving  work,  as  wrought  on  earth,  is  a 
historical  expression  of  principles  and  laws  which  are 
eternal  and  perpetually  operative  in  the  nature  of  God. 
It  was  "  through  an  eternal  spirit "  (Sm  Trz^eu/xaro?  alwvlov^ 
ix.  14), 1  the  spirit  of  eternal  love  and  sacrifice  in  his  own 
nature,  tliat  he  offered  himself  unto  God.     Traces  of  this 

1 "  This  fitly  chosen  phrase  thus  makes  the  one  sacrifice  of  Christ  cover 
with  its  efiicacy  all  prospective  sin.  But  it  does  more  than  that.  It  is 
retrospective  as  w^ell  as  prospective,  and  makes  the  sacrifice  valid  for  the 
ages  going  before.  For  an  eternal  spirit  is  independent  of  time,  and  gives 
to  acts  done  through  its  inspiration  validity  for  all  time.  In  this  respect 
it  might  be  said  of  Christ,  that  though  he  offered  himself  in  historical  fact 
after  the  world  had  been  in  existence  for  some  thousands  of  years,  he 
offered  himself  in  spirit  'before  the  foundation  of  the  world.'  "  Bruce, 
in  The  Expositor^  Fourth  Series,  Vol.  I.  p.  159. 


THE   HIGH   PRIESTHOOD    OF   CHRIST  509 

conception  of  "  eternal  atonement "  are  found  elsewhere  in 
tlie  New  Testament,  but  have  been  but  sparingly  recog- 
nized in  theology.^ 

Having  thus  sketched  the  salient  features  of  Christ's 
priesthood  and  shown  its  superiority,  in  the  various  par- 
ticulars specified,  to  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  he  pauses  to 
emphasize  the  chief  point  in  his  whole  argument,  which 
is,  that  Christ's  saving  office  is  exercised,  not  in  this 
lower  world  of  time  and  sense,  but  in  the  heavenly  world 
of  abiding  spiritual  realities  (viii.  1  sq.}.  Christ  is  thus 
lifted  above  all  comparison  with  those  priests  who,  in 
their  ministrations,  deal  only  with  pictures  and  shadows 
of  the  heavenly  realities  of  grace  and  salvation.  He 
belongs  to  a  higher  order  —  the  realm  of  spiritual  and 
abiding  reality.  Hence  he  represents  a  better  covenant 
through  which  men  may  obtain  such  a  secure  sense  of 
peace  with  God  as  was  not  possible  under  the  law 
(viii.  6). 

This  contrast  between  the  spheres,  in  which  the  two 
priesthoods  are  exercised,  is  now  more  fully  elaborated 
in  chapters  ix.  and  x.  1-18.  The  author  dwells  upon  the 
structure  and  arrangement  of  the  cosmic  sanctuary  (^rb 
dyiov  KocT/xiKov,  ix.  1).  It  consisted  of  two  parts,  an  outer 
one,  called  the  holy  place,  and  an  inner  one,  called  the 
most  holy  place,  each  with  its  appropriate  furnishings 
(ix.  2-5).  Now,  in  accordance  with  this  construction  of 
the  tabernacle,  the  priests  might  at  all  times  freely  enter 
the  outer  court  and  offer  their  sacrifices.  But  the  inner 
court  might  be  entered  by  the  high  priest  only,  and  by 
him  but  once  a  year,  when  he  made  atonement  for  his 
own  sins  and  for  those  of  the  people  (ix.  6,  7).  What 
now,  in  our  author's  view,  is  the  significance  of  this  ar- 
rangement ?  Why  was  the  holy  of  holies  made  so  inac- 
cessible ?  The  answer  is,  that  it  was  made  so  as  a  divine 
indication  that  free  approach  to  the  immediate  presence 
of  God  was  not  yet  permitted  under  the  old  covenant, 
that  is,  that  the  perfect  system  of  religion  had  not  yet 
appeared  (ix.  8).     Our  author  thus  sees  in  the  seclusion  of 

1  See  my  Doctrine  and  Life,  pp.  170-175. 


M 


510  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

the  inner  sanctuary  a  symbol  of  the  inadequacy  of  Leviti- 
calism.  The  sacrifices  which  were  offered  also  bore  the 
marks  of  imperfection;  they  were  outward  and  tempo- 
rary; they  could  not  cleanse  and  renew  the  heart  (ix. 
9,  10). 

Now  Christ  has  introduced  the  ideal  religion  to  which 
the  Mosaic  economy  pointed.  His  ministry  on  our  behalf 
is  not  an  outward  performance,  making  use  of  material 
means  which  are  but  symbols  of  divine  realities,  but  is  a 
moral  and  spiritual  affair.  He  has  offered  not  some  for- 
eign object,  .but  himself.  He  shed  not  tlie  blood  of  un- 
knowing beasts,  but  his  own  blood.  He  presented  to 
God  not  some  lower  creature,  but  his  own  spotless  and 
holy  life  —  an  offering  of  inherent  value  and  of  perpetual 
validity.  Hence  his  sacrifice  does  not  merely  procure  for- 
giveness in  a  constructive  way ;  it  secures  deliverance 
from  the  power  of  sin  {a6eTricn<;  dfiaprLa^;,  ix.  26).  It 
does  not  merely  cleanse  ceremonially  and  technically,  but 
really  and  inwardly  (ix.  11-14).  A  priesthood  so  supe- 
rior in  these  respects  to  that  of  Judaism  must  belong  to 
a  more  perfect  type  of  religion  than  that  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Christ's  perfect  sacrifice  supplies  the  defects  of  the 
Jewish  offerings  and  possesses  a  retroactive  power  which 
makes  its  benefits  available  for  those  who  lived  under  the 
law.  His  death  is  described  as  having  for  its  j)urpose  the 
deliverance  from  their  transgression  of  those  who  lived 
under  the  first  covenant,  so  that  the  salvation  of  all  God's 
people  —  under  Judaism  and  Christianity  alike  —  might 
be  secured  (ix.  15).  Here  we  find  the  counterpart  of  our 
author's  doctrine  of  the  perpetuity  of  Christ's  priestly 
office  in  heaven.  His  offering  is  not  only  valid  for  all 
future,  but  for  all  past  time.  His  giving  up  of  his  life 
when  on  earth  is  founded  in  those  changeless  principles 
and  laws  of  the  divine  nature  which  must  find  ex2:)ression 
wherever  sin  is.  It  was  "  through  an  eternal  spirit "  that 
he  offered  himself  —  a  spirit  of  eternal  love  and  holiness 
which  makes  atonement,  in  its  essence  and  principle,  an 
eternal  process  in  the  nature  and  action  of  God. 

At  this  point  (ix.  16,  17)  the  writer  gives  a  new  turn 


THE   HIGH   PRIESTHOOD    OF   CHRIST  511 

to  the  comparison  which  he  is  making  between  the  two 
covenants.  By  dropping  the  uniform  Scriptural  meaning 
of  BiaOrj/crj  (covenant),  and  adopting  a  current  Alexandrian 
meaning  (testament),  he  is  able  to  urge  upon  his  readers 
in  a  new  way  the  necessity  of  the  Messiah's  death. ^  A 
will  goes  into  effect  only  when  the  testator  dies.  Hence 
that  Christ  might  bequeath  to  us  his  saving  benefits,  it 
was  necessary  that  he  should  die.  This  argument  serves 
to  introduce  the  next  point  which  he  wishes  to  urge, 
namely,  that  the  shedding  of  blood  in  sacrifice  was  a  con- 
stant factor  in  Judaism.  So  common  was  it  as  a  means 
of  ratifying  covenants,  of  accomplishing  ceremonial  purifi- 
cations, and  of  seeking  forgiveness  at  the  hand  of  God, 
that  it  was  practically  universal :  "  According  to  the  law, 
I  may  almost  say,  all  things  are  cleansed  with  blood,  and 
apart  from  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission "  (ix. 
22).  By  such  analogies  our  author  seeks  to  illustrate  the 
necessity  of  Christ's  death.  As  the  lower  sanctuary,  the 
symbol  of  the  true,  was  ceremonially  purified  by  sacrifice, 
so  "the  heavenly  things  themselves  must  be  cleansed 
with  better  sacrifices"  than  those  of  Judaism,  that  is, 
made  ready  and  accessible  to  believers  by  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  (ix.  23). 

The  leading  points  on  which  the  author  dwells  as  he 
draws  his  argument  to  a  close  are  these  :  Christ's  priestly 
ministration  is  performed  in  the  upper  holy  of  holies, 
God's  dwelling-place  in  heaven  (ix.  24);  his  sacrificial 
death  was  so  effectual  that  it  does  not  need  to  be  re- 
peated, as  the  Jewish  sacrifices  did  (ix.  25,  26);  hence 
when  he  comes  again  to  earth  it  will  not  be  to  die  a 

1  Some  interpreters,  indeed,  refuse  to  admit  that  there  is  a  play  on 
the  word  biad-nK-q  here,  and  seek  to  maintain  the  meaning  "covenant" 
throughout  the  passage.  With  the  great  majority  of  exegetes,  I  regard 
this  effort  as  quite  unwarranted.  Its  result  may  be  seen  in  Mr.  Kendall's 
translation :  "  For  where  a  covenant  is  made,  it  is  a  necessity  that  death 
be  offered  of  him  that  maketh  the  covenant ;  for  a  covenant  is  valid  only 
if  men  be  dead  ;  for  is  he  that  maketh  it  strong  at  the  time  (jbTe)  when 
he  liveth?"  (Theology  of  the  Hebrew  Christians,  p.  160).  A  similar 
effort  to  carry  through  the  meaning  "covenant"  is  made  by  Professor 
Moulton  in  Ellicott's  New  Testament,  in  loco. 


512  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

second  time,  but  to  complete  the  salvation  of  liis  followers 
(ix.  27,  28):  his  offering  consisted  in  his  perfect  obedi- 
ence to  the  will  of  God,  whereby,  in  contrast  to  the  inef- 
fectual sacrifices  of  Judaism,  "  he  hath  perfected  for  ever 
them  that  are  sanctified"  (x.  14).  How  fitly,  then,  does 
the  prophet  describe  forgiveness  and  moral  renewal  as  the 
characteristic  effects  of  the  Gospel  (x.  16,  17),  and  how 
clear  is  the  conclusion  that  under  a  system  where  these 
results  are  attained,  there  can  be  no  further  need  for 
expiatory  sacrifices  (x.  18). 

It  remains,  now,  to  estimate  the  doctrinal  significance 
of  the  type  of  teaching  which  we  have  just  sketched.  It 
is  obvious  that  we  have  here  a  reading  of  Christ's  saving 
work  in  terms  of  Judaism,  but  with  a  difference ;  and  this 
difference  is  deep  and  wide.  The  Jewish  sacrificial  sys- 
tem belonged  to  the  world  of  picture  and  symbol ;  Christ's 
sacrifice  belongs  to  the  world  of  eternal  spiritual  reality. 
The  words  by  which  it  is  described  are  Jewish,  but  the 
writer  takes  all  possible  pains  to  make  his  readers  under- 
stand that  they  are  used  in  a  higher  than  the  Jewish 
meaning.  He  sees  in  the  death  of  Christ  a  wealth  of 
divine  truth  at  which  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  could 
only  vaguely  hint.  That  wonderful  self-offering  of  the 
Son  of  God  was  to  him  the  expression  and  revelation 
of  the  deepest  mysteries  of  Deity.  This  conception  is 
involved  in  the  constant  emphasis  which  is  laid  upon 
Christ's  work  as  a  copy  or  representation  of  eternal  truths 
and  realities.  But  when  we  ask :  Precisely  what  were 
the  divine  truths  which  Christ's  death  embodied  and  ex- 
pressed, and  how  did  it  embod}^  and  express  them,  we  do 
not  find  a  ready  answer.  The  writer  planted  himself 
upon  the  current  views  of  sacrifice,  and  was  content  to 
urge  the  capital  point  that  Christ  had  made  the  one  com- 
plete and  adequate  offering.  Into  the  philosophy  of  sac- 
rifice he  does  not  go  further  than  to  insist  that  Christ's 
sacrifice  belonged  to  a  higher  world  than  that  to  which 
the  Levitical  offerings  pertained. 

I  It  is  sometimes  said  that  our  author  comes  nearer  to 
Velaborating  a  theory  of  atonement  than  any  other   New 


THE   HIGH   PRIESTHOOD    OF   CHBIST  513 

Testament  writer.^  If  this  means  that  he  dwells  more 
at  length  —  in  terms  of  the  Jewish  ritual  —  upon  Christ's 
priestly  function  on  earth  and  in  heaven  than  any  other 
New  Testament  writer,  the  statement  is  quite  correct.-^ 
But  if  it  means  that  our  author  comes  nearer  to  supplying 
us  with  the  elements  of  a  philosophy  of  atonement,  I  can 
by  no  means  agree  with  it.  The  problems  concerning  the 
atonement  are  :  What  is  the  necessity  in  the  nature  of  God 
and  in  his  relation  to  sinful  man  for  the  death  of  Christ? 
and:  How  does  the  death  of  Christ  meet  the  demands 
arising  out  of  that  necessity  ?  An  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions will  be  sought  in  vain  in  our  epistle.  Not  that  they 
are  formally  answered  anywhere  in  the  New  Testament ; 
but  the  apostle  Paul  clearly  shows  (Rom.  iii.  24-26)  that 
he  had  pondered  them,  and  his  epistles  contain  suggestions 
of  a  theoretical  view  of  atonement.  On  the  contrary,  our 
author,  while  giving  expression  to  highly  suggestive  views 
of  the  spiritual  and  eternal  significance  of  Christ's  aton- 
ing work,  betrays  no  philosophy  of  the  subject.  Of  the 
motive  in  God  which  renders  atonement  necessary,  or  the 
way  in  which  it  procures  or  conditions  the  bestowment 
of  forgiveness,  he  says  nothing. 

He  lays  the  main  stress  upon  the  moral  effect  of  Christ's 
sacrifice.  His  favorite  words  are  KaOapl^eiv^  dyid^eiv.,  re- 
Xeiovv.  Christ's  work  cleanses  the  conscience,  puts  away 
sin,  and  renews  the  life.  Paul's  figure  of  ransom  (\vrp(o- 
crt?)  through  Christ's  death  he  uses  but  twice  (ix.  12,  15), 
but  without  elaborating  or  explaining  it.  The  conception 
of  reconciliation  (^KardWayrj')  —  so  common  in  Paul's  epis- 
tles—  does  not  meet  us  in  Hebrews.  The  term  IXdaKe- 
adat,  to  expiate,  occurs  once  (ii.  17).  But  it  is  difficult 
to  base  any  conclusion  as  to  the  import  of  sacrifice  upon 
it,  since  the  employment  of  this  word  by  an  Alexandrian 
like  our  author  may  reflect  the  well-known  Septuagint  use 
of  ikda-Keadai  as  a  translation  for  HS?,  to  cover,  to  for- 
give, to  purge  away  (as  in  Ps.  Ixxv.  3 ;  Sept.  Ixxiv.  4), 
where  these  verbs  mean  to  purge  away  (sins).^     'Waarri- 

1  So  Adeney,  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  227. 

2  So  both  our  English  versions. 
2l 


514  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   HEBREWS 

pLov  occurs  but  once  (ix.  5),  where  it  is  used  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  sense  of  the  Kapporeth^  or  lid  of  the  ark  of  the 
covenant.  1 

The  question  how,  in  the  view  of  our  author,  sacrifice 
is  related  to  sin,  involves  questions  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
Old  Testament  offerings  with  respect  to  which  interpreters 
are  divided.  I  cannot  doubt  that  they  were  regarded  as 
expressing,  in  some  instances  at  least,  the  guilt  and  hei- 
nousness  of  sin  in  God's  sight  and  as  testifying  to  his 
condemnation  of  it.  That  idea  seems  to  me  to  be  as- 
sumed in  this  epistle.  Sacrifice  has  something  more  than 
a  subjective  significance  and  effect.  On  the  great  day  of 
atonement  "a  remembrance  is  made  of  sins  year  by  year" 
(x.  3).  In  like  manner  Christ's  offering  for  sin  must  have 
been  regarded  as  expressing  its  ill  desert.  Why  such  an 
expression  was  necessary,  and  how  it  can  be  shown  to  be 
an  indispensable  accompaniment  and  condition  of  remis- 
sion, are  questions  for  theological  reflection  into  which 
our  author  does  not  enter. 

1  Cf.  Paul's  use  of  the  word  in  Rom.  iii.  25.     See  p.  413  of  this  volume. 


CHAPTER   V 

FAITH  AND   HOPE 

The  author  depicts  the  religious  life  chiefly  in  terms 
of  faith  and  hope.  Salvation  is  appropriated  by  faith, 
which  remains  a  constant  factor  in  the  development  of 
the  Christian  character.  "  Without  faith  it  is  impossible 
to  be  well  pleasing  to  God"  (xi.  6).  Hope  is  the  confi- 
dent expectation  of  future  blessedness,  "the  sure  and 
steadfast  anchor  of  the  soul"  which,  amid  the  storms  of 
life,  holds  the  believer  in  secure  connection  with  the 
invisible  world  beyond  the  veil  which  separates  heaven 
from  earth  (vi.  19). 

The  writer  sets  forth  his  doctrine  of  faith  both  nega- 
tively and  positively.  On  the  one  hand,  he  shows  how 
essential  faith  is  to  the  religious  life  by  illustrating  the 
disastrous  consequences  of  unbelief  in  Israel ;  on  the 
other,  he  confirms  this  necessity  by  an  eloquent  descrip- 
tion of  the  nature  and  effects  of  faith,  as  seen  in  a  long 
list  of  heroic  believers.  He  warns  his  readers  against 
imitating  the  unbelief  with  which  the  Jews  rece:^ved  the 
promise  of  a  happy  rest  in  Canaan  (iv.  2) .  Faithj  is  thus, 
at  least  in  part,  a  believing  reception  of  the  divine  word  ; 
In  this  case  it  is  the  assurance  that  in  the  coming  ages 
Gods^ill  fulfil  his  promise  to  grant  a  sabbath  rest  to  his 
people*  The  writer  prefaces  his  catalogue  of  the  heroes 
of  faith  by  a  definition  :  ''  Now  faith  is  a  firm  confidence 
with  respect  to  the  objects  of  hope  (eXiri^oixevcov  viro- 
(TTaa-L^')^  an  assured  conviction  of  the  existence  of  invisi- 
ble realities"  (Trpay/JLciTcov  eXeyx^'i  ov  /SXeTrofievcov,  xi.  1). 
Faith  is  belief  in  a  supersensuous  world.  The  author 
purposely  defines  it  in  the  most  general  terms  as  an 
attitude  of  mind  with  respect  to  a  realm  of  reality  lying 

615 


516  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   HEBREWS 

beyond  human  perception  and  calculation  —  a  definition 
large  enough  to  include  the  various  phases  of  faith  which 
he  proposes  to  illustrate.  No  other  New  Testament  writer 
makes  use  of  so  abstract  and  philosophical  a  conception 
of  faith.  With  Paul  especially,  faith  is  personal  trust  in 
Christ  and  mystic  fellowship  with  him.  This  idea  is 
not  wanting  in  our  epistle,  which  speaks  of  believers  as 
"partakers  of  Christ"  (iii.  14)  and  of  faith  as  involving 
obedience  to  Christ  (v.  18);  but  it  is  not  brought  out  as 
defining  the  essence  of  faith.  This  difference  is  not  due 
to  any  fundamental  doctrinal  divergence,  but  to  the  dif- 
ferent method  and  object  of  the  two  writers.  Paul,  argu- 
ing against  putting  confidence  in  legal  works,  insists  upon 
trusting  in  Christ  alone  for  salvation  ;  our  author,  seeking 
to  strengthen  a  weakening  hold  upon  all  spiritual  truth, 
aims  to  make  the  invisible  and  supernatural  in  general 
seem  more  real  and  practical  to  his  readers.  Both  aimed 
to  foster  devotion  to  Christ  as  the  one  only  Saviour,  —  the 
former  more  by  an  appeal  to  a  sense  of  sin  and  of  the  need 
of  pardon,  the  latter  more  by  an  appeal  to  the  religious 
nature,  the  capacity  to  perceive  and  respond  to  an  invisible 
spiritual  order. 

The  writer's  conception  of  faith  is  amply  illustrated  in 
chapter  xi.  It  is  by  a  conviction  concerning  the  unseen 
that  we  believe  in  the  creation  of  the  world  by  the  power 
of  God,  whereby  the  visible  order  of  nature  has  come  into 
being  (xi.  3).  This  is  an  example  which  especially  illus- 
trates the  attitude  of  the  understanding  (Trto-ret  voovfiev) 
towards  an  event  lying  wholly  beyond  the  range  of  human 
observation.  The  next  illustration  — the  faith  of  Abel  — 
presents  quite  a  different  aspect  of  the  subject.  The 
offerer's  faith  gave  religious  value  to  his  sacrifice,  and 
won  for  him  the  divine  verdict  which  pronounced  him 
righteous,  that  is,  acceptable  to  God  (xi.  4).  In  like 
manner  Noah,  by  heeding  the  divine  warnings  and  acting 
in  view  of  them,  "became  an  heir  of  the  righteousness 
which  is  according  to  faith"  (xi.  7).  Our  author  makes 
no  use  of  the  juridical  analogies  by  which  Paul  is  accus- 
tomed to  expound  the  divine  acceptance  of  men.      He 


FAITH   AND   HOPE  517 

does  not  use  the  terms,  "to  justif}^"  (hiKaiovv)  and  "to 
reckon  for  righteousness "  (Xoji^ecrdai  ek  StKaioavvrjv')^ 
and  "  righteousness  "  (hiKauoavvif)  is  not  represented  as  a 
legal  status  but  as  a  moral  condition.  There  is  thus  a 
formal  difference ;  but,  if  I  have  correctly  interpreted  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  there  is  no  con- 
tradiction in  principle,  since  for  Paul,  as  Avell  as  for  our 
author,  the  terms  in  question  are  ethical  in  their  content. ^ 
The  confidence  of  Abraham  and  Sarah  that  what  God 
had  promised,  although  from  a  human  standpoint  so  highly 
improbable,  would  come  to  pass  (xi.  8-12),  is  especially 
adapted  to  illustrate  the  faith  of  those  who  "  believe  that 
God  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  seek  after 
him"  (xi.  6).  But,  continues  our  author,  after  all  that 
may  be  truly  said  of  the  heroic  confidence  in  God  which 
was  cherished  by  these  Old  Testament  saints,  there  was 
something  which  they  lacked.  They  never  realized  on 
earth  the  full  fruition  of  their  faith.  Abraham  and  his 
family  died  without  having  received  the  blessings  of  a 
happy  life  in  Canaan  which  had  been  promised  them. 
But  not  even  by  this  disappointment  was  their  faith 
shaken.  They  did  not  regard  this  life  as  measuring  the 
scope  of  God's  purpose  of  grace.  As  the  world  dark- 
ened on  their  sight  they  caught  a  clearer  view  of  the 
divine  promise,  and  knew  that  God  would  fulfil  it  in 
a  more  perfect  way  than  they  had  dreamed.  Though 
they  found  no  home  in  Canaan,  they  knew  that  they 
would  find  it  in  the  heavenly  city  of  God,  which  has 
eternal  foundations,  and  thus  faith  achieved  its  victory 
in  the  very  face  of  disappointment  and  disillusion  (xi. 
13-16). 

The  faith  which  Abraham  showed  in  his  willingness  to 
offer  up  Isaac  was  a  heroic  trust  in  God.  Although  to 
human  seeming  the  death  of  his  only  son  would  preclude 
the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise  of  a  numerous  pos- 
terity, the  patriarch  still  believed  that  it  would  come 
true  even  if  it  were  necessary  to  raise  up  Isaac  from  the 
dead  (xi.  17-19).     The  faith  of  Isaac  in  declaring  what 

1  See  p.  421  sq. 


518  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

should  be  the  future  destiny  of  his  two  sons  seems  to  have 
been  a  prophetic  prevision  (xi.  20).  Similarly,  Jacob  was 
enabled  by  faith  —  a  sublime  confidence  in  God's  plan  and 
purpose  —  to  forecast  the  future  of  Joseph's  two  sons,  and 
reverently  to  thank  God  for  his  goodness,  supporting 
himself  in  his  weakness  upon  his  staff  (xi.  21).  Joseph's 
foresight  of  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  Egypt  is  an 
example  of  faith  (xi.  22).  The  action  of  Moses'  parents 
in  daring  the  wrath  of  the  Egyptian  king,  and  hiding  the 
child  for  safe-keeping  during  three  months,  was  an  act 
of  faith  because  they  believed  that  God  had  some  great 
purpose  to  serve  in  the  life  of  the  beautiful  child  (xi.  23). 
It  was  due  to  his  faith  in  God  that  Moses,  when  he  grew 
up,  disdained  the  honor  and  power  which  might  have 
been  his  as  the  reputed  son  of  a  royal  princess,  and  chose 
to  suffer  hardships  with  the  people  of  God  rather  than 
to  enjoy  the  sinful  pleasures  of  Pharaoh's  court.  The 
faith  displayed  in  this  choice  lay  in  his  preference  for 
righteousness  to  wealth  —  for  heavenly  blessedness  to 
earthly  comfort  and  luxury  (xi.  24-26).  These  examples, 
and  those  which  follow,  illustrate  the  effects  of  faith  in 
the  field  of  human  life  and  action.  They  show  what  dan- 
gers men  have  faced,  what  sufferings  they  have  endured, 
what  improbabilities  they  have  been  able  to  believe  in, 
in  consequence  of  their  confidence  in  God  and  their 
assured  conviction  that  there  is  a  supernatural  and  invisi- 
ble order  of  forces  and  laws  which  asserts  itself  in  the  life 
of  men. 

For  our  author  faith  is  no  mere  intellectual  belief.  It 
is  a  living  and  intense  conviction  of  the  supernatural 
which  evinces  itself  in  conduct.  Its  most  characteristic 
effect  is  heroism.  It  is  the  faith  which  '•  removes  moun- 
tains "  of  difficulty  and  improbability  on  which  our  author 
is  most  fond  of  dwelling.  Among  its  fruits  are  achieve- 
ments in  war,  deliverance  from  perils,  and  endurance  of 
the  greatest  privations  and  sufferings  (xi.  33-38).  The 
Christian  must  regard  himself  as  surrounded  by  a  great 
company  of  persons  who  have  given  such  proofs  of  their 
faith  and  who  are  now  watching  him  to  see  if  he,  too,  will 


FAITH   AND   HOPE  519 

prove  steadfast.  He  should  be  inspired  to  a  heroic  con- 
fidence in  God  by  the  examples  of  those  whose  achieve- 
ments, through  faith,  are  described  (xii.  1).  Especially 
should  the  Christian  look  to  Jesus  himself  who  is  the 
"  leader  and  perfecter  of  faith,"  the  supreme  example  of 
unshaken  trust  in  God.  He  passed  through  a  career  of 
the  severest  moral  trial  and  proved  himself  victorious  over 
evil.  He  endured  the  greatest  sufferings  without  the 
slightest  loss  of  confidence  in  God,  because  his  hope  was 
set  upon  the  future  blessedness  with  which  he  knew  he 
would  be  rewarded  (xii.  2).  Thus  did  it  please  God,  "in 
bringing  many  sons  unto  glory,"  to  set  before  them,  in  the 
life  of  Jesus,  an  inspiring,  perfect  example  of  the  faith 
which  is  well  pleasing  to  himself.  Thus  was  the  "  cap- 
tain of  their  salvation  perfected  through  sufferings  "  (ii. 
10),  and  now  he  is  going  before  his  followers,  and,  if  they 
are  true  to  him,  will  lead  them  on  in  their  conflict  with 
sin  and  suffering  to  final  victory.  Faith  has  a  certain 
militant  quality  in  the  thought  of  our  author.  It  is  an 
imitation  of  Christ  in  his  endurance  of  suffering  and 
his  triumph  over  sin.  It  possesses  the  magic  power  to 
transmute  the  hardships  which  the  readers  are  endur- 
ing into  benefits.  Faith  looks  upon  sufferings  as  provi- 
dential chastisements  at  the  hand  of  God  (xii.  5-11). 
It  sees  a  way  in  which  such  trials  may  minister  to  the 
good  of  the  believer  by  disciplining  him  in  patience  and 
directing  his  thoughts  to  the  heavenly  reward  of  the 
faithful. 

We  have  seen  that  the  faith  of  the  epistle  is  intensely 
ethical  and  practical.  The  question  now  arises  :  Does 
our  author  also  know  of  the  love  which  Paul  declares  to 
be  greater  than  faith  (1  Cor.  xiii.  13),  without  which 
even  the  faith  which  could  "  remove  mountains  "  would 
be  morally  worthless  (1  Cor.  xiii.  2)  ?  The  idea  of  love 
is  certainly  not  developed,  or  dwelt  upon  at  length,  in  the 
epistle.  But  it  is  by  no  means  wholly  wanting.  The 
circumstances  of  the  readers  and  the  purpose  of  the  letter 
sufficiently  account  for  the  stronger  emphasis  which  is 
laid  upon  courage  and  steadfastness  than  upon  love  and 


520  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

kindred  virtues.  But  our  author  incidentally  recognizes 
the  fundamental  importance  of  love  in  the  Christian  life. 
One  of  the  grounds  of  his  hope  that  his  readers  will  not 
finally  apostatize  from  Christ  is,  that  they  have  shown 
their  love  to  God  by  benevolent  ministrations  to  their 
fellow-believers  (vi.  10)  ;  and  in  his  concluding  exhorta- 
tions he  urges  them  to  exercise  fraternal  affection  towards 
one  another,  to  show  hospitality  unto  strangers,  and  to 
succor  those  who  are  enduring  imprisonment  or  persecu- 
tion (xiii.  1-3  ;  cf.  x.  24).  The  epistle  is  not  a  treatise 
on  the  Christian  virtues,  but  an  argument  and  an  appeal 
designed  to  dissuade  the  readers  from  going  back  to  Juda- 
ism, by  strengthening  their  confidence  in  Christ  and  his 
salvation.  Naturally,  therefore,  it  takes  account  chiefly 
of  those  aspects  of  the  Christian  life  which  are  most 
closely  related  to  the  present  condition  and  experience 
of  the  reader. 

Both  on  this  account  and  in  consequence  of  the  current 
expectation  of  the  near  return  of  the  Lord  (x.  25,  37), 
the  writer  dwells  much  upon  the  attitude  of  the  Christian 
towards  the  future  life  —  the  coming  age  of  Messianic 
blessedness.  He  solemnly  warns  his  readers  against  imi- 
tating the  unbelief  and  perverseness  of  the  Israelites  in 
consequence  of  which  entrance  into  the  promised  land  was 
denied  them  (iii.  7  sg'.),  and  exhorts  them  to  hold  fast  to 
the  end  their  hope  of  entering  into  the  rest  of  the  JNIessi- 
anic  Kingdom  (iii.  6,  14).  Now  the  rest  of  Canaan  and 
that  of  the  Messianic  age  are,  in  the  vicAv  of  our  author, 
typical  parallels.  They  are  so  nearly  identified  that  his 
thought  glides  easily  over  from  one  to  the  other.  Since 
the  Israelites  did  not  occupy  the  rest  which  was  promised 
to  them,  it  still  remains  available,  in  a  new  and  higher 
form,  for  the  people  of  the  new  covenant  (iv.  6,  7). 
"  There  remaineth  therefore  a  sabbath  rest  {<7a/3^aTt(r/jL6<;} 
for  the  people  of  God"  (iv.  9).  The  believer  must  give 
all  diligence  to  make  that  rest  his  own,  for  God  who 
searches  the  depths  of  motive  and  purpose  in  man  will 
hold  him  to  a  strict  account  of  his  fidelity  and  obedience 
(iv.  11-13).     To  such  a  holding  fast  of  his  confession  the 


FAITH   AND   HOPE  521 

Christian  is  encouraged  by  the  sympathy  of  Christ  with 
him  in  all  his  trials.  He  may  ever  rest  assured  of  the 
divine  aid  in  helping  him  to  overcome  the  power  of  evil 
(iv.  14-16). 

The  readers  are  exhorted  to  such  progress  in  religious 
life  and  knowledge  as  will  enable  them  to  understand  the 
deeper  as^Dects  of  Christian  doctrine,  especially,  it  would 
seem,  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  heavenly  priesthood  (vi. 
1  sq.}.  In  this  connection  the  author  introduces  a  dark 
picture  of  the  fearful  consequences  of  apostasy  from  Christ 
(vi.  4-8  ;  ef.  x.  26-31,  where  the  same  subject  recurs). 
These  passages  have  been  so  long  forced  to  do  service  in 
the  dispute  about  predestination  and  irresistible  grace, 
that  their  original  and  natural  meaning  has  been  well- 
nigh  lost  to  view.  Curiously,  they  were,  in  part,  available 
on  both  sides  of  the  controversy.  On  the  one  hand,  it  was 
argued,  as  against  the  doctrine  of  irresistible  grace,  that 
the  first  passage  speaks  of  some  as  having  fallen  away  from 
a  state  of  enlightenment  and  of  participation  in  the  Chris-* 
tian  salvation  (vi.  4-6)  ;  on  the  other,  it  was  contended 
that  if  such  a  fall  is  possible,  it  must  be  fatal,  since  it  is 
stated  that  "  it  is  impossible  to  renew  again  unto  repent- 
ance" those  who  "fall  away"  (vi.  6;  x.  26).  As  thus 
used  these  passages  contradicted  both  theories :  the  one  in 
speaking  of  "  falling  from  grace  "  as  possible,  if  not  as 
actual ;  the  other,  in  saying  that  the  lapsed  could  not  be 
restored  to  repentance.  This  fact  is  evidence  enough  that 
both  parties  to  the  controversy  misapplied  the  passages. 
As  I  have  elsewhere  shown,^  the  author's  thought  here  is  : 
If  a  man  deliberately  and  wilfully  deserts  Christ,  he  will 
find  no  other  Saviour ;  there  remains  no  sacrifice  for  sins 
(x.  26)  except  that  which  Christ  has  made.  The  Old 
Testament  offerings  are  powerless  to  save ;  one  who  refuses 
to  be  saved  by  Christ  refuses  to  be  saved  at  all.  For  him 
who  turns  away  from  Christ  and  determines  to  seek  sal- 
vation elsewhere,  there  can  be  only  disappointment  and 
failure.      While  such  an  attitude  of  refusal  and  contempt 

1  The  Johannine  Theology^  pp.  154,  155.     See  the  references  there 
given. 


522  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  HEBREWS 

lasts,^  there  is  no  possibility  of  recovery  for  those  who 
assume  it.  But  this  impossibility  is  not  an  absolute  but  a 
relative  one  ;  it  is  an  impossibility  which  lies  within  the 
limits  of  the  supposition  made  in  the  context,  namely,  that 
of  a  renunciation  of  Christ.  Nothing  is  said  against  the 
possibility  of  recovery  to  God's  favor  whenever  one  ceases 
from  such  a  contempt  of  Christ  and  returns  to  him  as  the 
one  only  Saviour. 

The  future  is  full  of  bright  prospects  for  the  Christian. 
The  hardships  of  the  present  life  will  be  far  outweighed 
by  the  glory  and  blessedness  of  the  world  to  come.  There 
the  believer  will  receive  a  better  possession  than  those  of 
earth  —  a  great  recompense  of  reward  for  all  his  sufferings 
here  (x.  34,  35).  There  he  will  enter  "a  better  country, 
that  is,  a  heavenly "  (xi.  16),  "  the  city  which  hath  the 
foundations,  whose  builder  and  maker  is  God"  (xi.  10), 
the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  inhabited  by  an  innumerable 
company  of  angels  and  of  perfected  men  (xii.  22,  23). 
The  day  of  testing  draws  near  when  a  great  shaking  will 
overturn  all  things  that  are  not  stable,  "  in  order  that  those 
things  which  are  not  shaken  may  remain  "  (xii.  27).  Then 
the  full  perfection  (reXetftfcrt?)  of  the  believer  will  be  realized 
and  all  his  longings  satisfied.  This  hope  of  a  speedy  and 
blessed  consummation  is  the  ground  of  exhortation  to  grati- 
tude and  devotion :  "  Let  us  feel  thankfulness,  whereby 
we  may  offer  service  well  pleasing  to  God  with  reverence 
and  awe  "  (xii.  28)  ;  "  Let  us  offer  up  a  sacrifice  of  praise 
to  God  continually,  that  is,  the  fruit  of  lips  which  make 
confession  to  his  name  "  (xiii.  15). 

1  Note  the  force  of  the  present  participles,  dvaa-ravpovPTas  and  irapa- 
deLyfiari^ovTas  (vi.  6),  which  we  may  render  :  while  they  are  crucifying  to 
themselves  afresh  the  Son  of  God  and  putting  him  to  an  open  shame. 
See  R.V.,  margin. 


PART   VI 

THE   THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 
CHAPTER   I 

INTRODUCTORY 

The  Apocalypse  represents  a  type  of  religious  litera- 
ture which  flourished  in  the  late  Jewish  and  early  Chris- 
tian periods.  It  was  an  aftergrowth  of  prophecy  and 
made  free  use  of  prophetic  materials. ^  The  age  of  apoca- 
lyptic writing  was  marked  by  revolution,  oppression,  and 
persecution.  The  Syrian  and  Roman  conquests,  and  the 
threatened  destruction  of  the  Jewish  state,  gave  to  the 
spirit  of  prophecy  in  the  nation  a  new  direction  and  a 
new  sphere  of  activity.  The  minds  of  the  people  were 
filled  with  mingled  alarm  and  hope  in  view  of  impending 
calamities,  and  their  eager  attention  was  directed  to  their 
significance  and  consequences. 

During  the  later  years  of  Judaism  two  great  emotions 
struggled  in  the  heart  of  the  nation  :  anxiety  on  account 
of  the  darkening  cloud  that  was  gathering  over  the  land, 
and  hope  of  deliverance  through  the  Messiah.  Jewish 
apocalyptic  literature  took  its  rise  from  this  combination, 
which  supplies  its  motive  and  determines  its  character. 
This  literature  depicts  the  sufferings  of  the  people  and 
derives  comfort  and  hope  for  them  from  the  expectation 
of  Messiah's  speedy  advent.  The  Jewish  apocalypses  are 
commonly  issued  under  the  name  of  some  prophet  or  other 
worthy  of  the  olden  time,  and  into-  his  mouth  are  put 
warnings  and  predictions  which,  under  forms  of  thought 

1  See  Terry's  Biblical  Apocalyptics,     New  York,  1898, 
623 


524       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

derived  from  the  age  of  the  person  whose  name  is  assumed, 
reflect  the  time  when  the  writing  is  actually  composed. 
A  convenient  example  is  the  Book  of  Daniel.  The  temp- 
tations and  sufferings  of  a  faithful  servant  of  Jehovah  in 
the  period  of  the  captivity  are  rehearsed,  the  doom  of 
his  oppressors  is  declared,  and  the  fall  of  Babylon,  "  the 
beauty  of  the  Chaldeans'  pride,"  is  proclaimed,  in  order 
that,  under  this  form,  the  apocalyptist  may  utter,  on  be- 
half of  his  people,  his  complaint  to  heaven  against  the 
cruelties  of  the  Syrian  oppressor,  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and 
comfort  the  nation  by  fostering  the  hope  of  his  destruc- 
tion at  the  impending  advent  of  the  Messiah.  Here  we 
observe  the  two  main  factors  which  unite  to  produce  apoc- 
alyptic writing  :  (1)  complaint  against  oppression,  coupled 
with  delineations  of  its  severity  ;  and  (2)  assurances  of  the 
deliverance  of  the  people  from  it  — the  object  of  all  being 
to  encourage  and  comfort  the  people  of  God. 

When  the  occasion,  nature,  and  aim  of  this  species  of 
literature  are  considered,  and  when  its  great  influence  in 
the  later  Judaism  is  appreciated,  it  seems  quite  natural 
that  Jewish  Christians  should  adopt  this  style  of  writing 
for  the  expression  of  their  complaints  against  Jewish  and 
Roman  hostility,  and  of  their  hope  of  Messiah's  second 
coming.  Here,  as  before,  the  two  facts  which  combine 
to  prompt  these  apocalyptic  representations  are  oppres- 
sion and  the  Messianic  hope,  with  this  difference,  that 
now  it  is  the  oppression  of  the  Christians  by  Jews  and 
Romans  and  the  hope  of  Messiah's  second,  not  of  his  first, 
advent. 

Our  canonical  Book  of  Revelation  is  a  specimen  of  the 
type  of  literature  whose  general  features  have  been  de- 
scribed. The  peculiarities  of  the  book  illustrate  the  fixed 
characteristics  of  this  kind  of  writing.  It  is,  on  the  one 
hand,  an  outcry  against  Jewish  antichristian  fanaticism 
and  Roman  persecution,  and,  on  the  other,  a  symbolic 
description  of  the  destruction  which  should  overtake  these 
hostile  powers,  and  usher  in  the  deliverance  of  the  Church 
at  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  The  book  is  at  once  "  a 
rallying   cry  to  Christian  warriors"   (Farrar)  and  "the 


INTRODUCTORY  525 

epic  of  Christian  hope"  (Beyschlag).  It  is  the  outcry, 
the  protest  of  the  persecuted  Church  against  Jewish  hate 
and  Roman  cruelty  ;  it  is  also  a  prophetic  threat  of  the 
destruction  of  these  foes,  and  thus  a  message  of  comfort 
to  believers.  The  writer  sees  in  the  troublous  times  in 
which  he  lives  the  travail-throes  of  the  coming  age,  the 
dolores  Messice,  the  manifestations  of  the  "mystery  of  law- 
lessness "  (2  Thess.  ii.  7),  which,  according  to  the  prevail- 
ing mode  of  thought,  were  regarded  as  heralding  the 
approaching  advent.  Thus  the  aim  of  the  book  was  dis- 
tinctly practical.  It  was  primarily  a  book  for  its  age, 
and  must  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  conceptions  and  con- 
ditions of  its  time.  We  may  believe  that  it  had  a  power- 
ful effect  in  promoting  Christian  courage  and  hope  during 
the  trying  experiences  of  an  age  of  bitter  persecution. 

The  obscurity  of  the  book  is  partly  due  to  the  nature 
of  its  theme,  the  programme  of  the  future  which  God  has 
not  clearly  revealed,  and  partly  to  the  nature  of  its  lan- 
guage and  materials.  It  is  purposely  obscure  in  its  refer- 
ences to  the  dread  power  of  Rome.  It  deals  in  visions 
and  symbols.  It  is  a  book  of  enigmas.  The  interpreta- 
tion of"  its  language  must  always  be,  in  considerable  part, 
conjectural.  But  the  leading  thought  and  purpose  of  the 
book  need  not  remain  doubtful,  if  it  is  read  in  the  light 
which  the  study  of  apocalyptic  writing  has  thrown  upon 
it,  and  with  a  sense  of  the  terrible  sufferings  which  called 
it  forth.  As  some  one  has  said,  the  book  must  be  read 
by  the  lurid  glare  of  burning  cities,  —  Jerusalem  and 
Rome,  —  and,  it  might  be  added,  by  the  light  of  martyr- 
fires. 

Respecting  the  questions  of  the  authorship,  the  date,  and 
the  unity  of  the  book,  scholars  have  not  been  able  to  reach 
any  agreement.  Only  a  brief  reference  can  here  be  made 
to  the  present  state  of  criticism.  The  principal  discordant 
note  in  the  early  ecclesiastical  tradition,  which  ascribed 
the  book  to  the  apostle  John,  is  the  opinion  of  Dionysius, 
bishop  of  Alexandria,  who  held  that  it  was  written  by 
John  the  presbyter. ^     Many  moderns  have  adopted  the 

1  Eusebius,  Ecc.  Hist.  Bk,  VII.  ch.  xxv. 


526       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

same  opinion.^  The  Tubingen  scliool  accepted  the  com- 
mon tradition  respecting  the  origin  of  the  Apocalypse, 
and  then  made  its  differences  from  the  fourth  Gospel  a 
makeweight  against  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  lat- 
ter. The  successors  of  this  school  deny  both  Gospel  and 
Apocalypse  to  the  apostle. ^  Some  maintain  the  apostolic 
authorship  of  both.^  The  book  does  not  claim  to  have 
been  written  by  the  apostle  John ;  its  style  and  tone  are 
very  different  from  those  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  its 
manner  of  speaking  of  the  apostles  (xxi.  14)  seems  strange 
if  the  author  were  one  of  the  Twelve.  For  these  and 
other  reasons  a  decided  majority  of  scholars,  holding 
various  theories  respecting  the  fourth  Gospel,  doubt  the 
apostolic  authorship  of  the  Apocalypse.  Moreover,  the 
hypothesis  of  composite  authorship,  to  be  noticed  pres- 
ently, has  put  quite  a  new  face  on  the  whole  question. 
It  is  very  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  apostle  John  was 
the  author  of  the  book,  in  the  strict  sense  of  authorship, 
provided  it  be  held  that  he  wrote  the  fourth  Gospel.  But 
the  documentary  theory  represents  the  book  as  a  growth 
arising  out  of  successive  combinations  of  a  fund  of  apoca- 
lyptic material.  On  this  view  the  apostle  might  well 
have  compiled  and  published  one  or  more  editions  of  it. 
In  this  way  the  association  of  his  name  with  it  would  be 
explained,  and  the  apocalyptic  style,  characteristic  of  the 
materials  used,  would  create  less  difficulty  than  on  the 
supposition  of  direct  and  unitary  authorshij^.  But  what- 
ever view  be  taken  on  this  point,  the  entire  thought-world 
of  the  Apocalypse  is  so  different  from  that  of  the  Gospel 
and  Epistles  of  John  that  it  should  be  separately  treated 
in  Biblical  Theology.* 

1  So  De  Wette,  Bleek,  Diisterdieck, 

2  So  Pfleiderer,  Holtzmann,  Harnack,  and  Weizsacker.  The  last- 
named  scholar,  however,  regards  it  as  a  product  of  the  "school"  of  John, 
which  had  its  centre  at  Ephesus.     Apostolic  Age,  II.  174  (orig.  p.  504). 

5  Godet,  Meyer,  Salmon,  Westcott,  Weiss,  Farrar.  Beyschlag  thinks 
it  not  impossible  that  John  wrote  two  such  different  books,  supposing  an 
interval  of  twenty  years  between  them. 

*  As  by  Weiss,  Farrar,  and  Beyschlag,  who  says:  "The  difference 
between  the  Apocalypse  and  the  rest  of  the  Johannine  writings  is  so 


INTEODUCTORY  627 

The  question  of  date  is  as  unsettled  as  that  of  author- 
ship. The  traditional  date  is  95  or  96,  in  agreement  with 
the  testimony  of  Irenseus  :  "The  vision  of  the  Apocalypse 
was  seen  no  very  long  time  since,  but  almost  in  our  own 
days,  towards  the  end  of  Domitian's  reign"  (91-96).^ 
Later,  however,  this  date  was  given  up  by  most  scholars 
in  favor  of  68-70,  on  the  ground  of  internal  indications. ^ 
This  remained  the  generally  received  view  until  quite 
recently.  At  present  a  large  number  of  critics  hold  to 
the  later  date,  partly  in  deference  to  the  testimony  of 
Irenseus,  partly  from  historical  considerations  derived 
from  the  study  of  conditions  reflected  in  the  book,  and 
partly  (in  some  instances)  for  reasons  connected  with 
theories  of  composite  authorship. ^  It  remains,  therefore, 
a  disputed  point  whether  the  book  reflects  the  age  of  Nero 
(54-68)  or  that  of  Domitian  (91-96).  On  the  document- 
ary theory  of  the  book  which  holds  that  it  is  composed  of 
short  apocalypses  emanating  from  different  periods,  a  com- 
bination of  these  views  is  made  possible.  By  this  theory 
the  phenomena  which  favor  an  earlier,  and  those  which 
favor  a  later  date,  could  be  accounted  for,  as  well  as 
the  apparent  combination  of  Jewish  and  Christian  ele- 
ments. 

Although  the  unity  of  the  Apocalypse  had  been  ques- 
tioned before,  it  was  in  1882  that  a  scientific  character 
was  given  to  the  partition-hypothesis  by  the  labors  of 
Weizsacker  and  Volter.  Increased  currency  was  given 
to  the  theory  by  Vischer,^  who  held  that  the  canonical 
Apocalypse  was  a  translation  into  Greek  of  a  Jewish 
apocalypse,  written  before  a.d.  70,  and  published,  with 
additions  and  interpolations,  shortly  before  100.     To  this 

great,  and  the  question  of  authorship  so  unsettled,  that  we  must  consider 
them  for  Biblical  Theology  separately,  inasmuch  as,  even  though  the 
author  should  be  the  same,  they  give  expression  to  a  different  view  of  the 
world."     iV.  T.  Theol.  II.  362  (Bk.  V.  II.  ch.  i.  §  5). 

1  Against  Heresies,  V.  30,  3.     Cf.  Eusebius,  Ecc.  Hist.  V.  8. 

2  So  Westcott,  Lightfoot,  Farrar,  Bovon,  Sanday,  Beyschlag. 

3  Among  those  who  hold  the  later  date  are  Weizsacker,  Harnack, 
Jiilicher,  Ramsay,  Briggs,  and  McGiffert. 

^  Die  Offenbarung  Johannis,  1886. 


52$       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

view  Harnack  gave  his  assent.  A  little  later  Sabatier^ 
contended,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  Apocalypse  is  Chris- 
tian in  structure  and  basis,  but  that  the  author  blended 
with  his  materials  certain  Jewish  oracles.  Still  later 
Sx^itta^  maintained  that  the  book  had  a  Christian  nu- 
cleus, written  by  John  Mark  about  60,  and  that  with  this 
the  Christian  editor  had  combined  two  Jewish  apocalypses : 
one  written  in  the  time  of  Pompey  (ca.  63),  the  other  in 
the  time  of  Caligula  (37-41).  In  this  view  the  book  is 
made  up  of  three  distinct  apocalypses  —  one  Christian, 
two  Jewish  —  blended  together.  More  recentl}^  Gunkel^ 
has  sought  the  key  to  the  sources  of  the  Apocalypse  in 
the  Babylonian  creation-myth.  Briggs*  holds  that  six 
complete  apocalypses  underlie  our  Book  of  Revelation, 
and  that  it  has  passed  through  four  editions.^  The 
earliest  of  these  apocalypses  is  held  to  date  from  the 
time  of  Caligula;  the  latest  —  that  of  the  epistles  —  to 
be  not  earlier  than  Nero  and  perhaps  as  late  as  Domitian. 
All  of  them,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  latest,  were 
originally  written  in  Hebrew.  This  composite  work,  as 
we  now  have  it,  was  issued  near  the  end  of  the  first  cen- 
tury.^ It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  whether  the  Apocalypse  is  composed  in  part  of  Jew- 
ish materials  ^  or  is  entirely  Christian.^ 

Although  the  theory  in  question  has  met  with  vigorous 
opposition,^  an  increasing  number  of  scholars  favor  it  in 

1  Bevue  de  Theologie,  Lausanne,  1887. 

2  Die  Offenharung  des  Johannes^  1889. 
2  Schopfung  und  Chaos^  1895. 

4  The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  1895. 

5  For  the  analysis,  see  op.  cit.,  p.  305. 

6  For  a  fuller  history  of  the  documentary  theory,  see  Dr.  Briggs's  work 
cited  above,  pp.  284-305,  and  an  article  by  Professor  George  A.  Barton, 
entitled  "  The  Apocalypse  and  Recent  Criticism,"  in  The  American  Jour- 
nal of  Theology,  October,  1898. 

^  So  Vischer,  Harnack,  Pfleiderer,  0.  Holtzmann,  Sabatier,  Spitta, 
Gunkel,  Bousset,  McGiffert. 

8  So  Weizsacker,  Volter,  Ramsay,  Briggs. 

9  From  Warfield,  Weiss,  Salmon,  Beyschlag  et  al.  H.  J.  Holtzmann, 
in  the  Iland-Commentar  (1891),  expresses  himself  as  doubtful  respecting 
the  value  of  the  hypothesis.  In  his  Neutest.  Theol.  (1897),  however,  he 
seems  to  regard  it  more  favorably. 


IKTRODUCTORY  529 

some  of  its  various  forms.  I  do  not  feel  warranted  in  ex- 
pressing any  positive  opinion  upon  it.  This  much,  how- 
ever, must  be  said  in  its  favor  :  It  offers,  at  least,  a  tentative 
explanation  of  some  of  the  seams  and  incongruities  in  the 
structure  of  the  work  and  a  solution  of  the  apparently 
conflicting  evidence  bearing  on  the  date  of  the  book, 
and  supplies  a  new  method  of  harmonizing  its  Jewish 
and  Christian  elements.  Since,  however,  the  book  as 
it  stands  undoubtedly  has  a  certain  unity  of  plan  and 
aim,  whatever  may  have  been  the  method  of  its  compo- 
sition, I  shall  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  "  the  writer "  or 
"the  author."  For  our  present  purpose,  it  makes  small 
difference  whether  he  was  the  author  in  the  strict  sense 
or  a  compiler  and  redactor.  The  substantial  unity  of 
the  book  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  documentary 
theory.  1 

A  brief  sketch  of  the  way  in  which  the  scenes  of  the 
Apocalypse  are  unfolded  may  properly  precede  the  more 
particular  exposition  of  its  main  thoughts.  After  the 
first  three  chapters,  which  contain  the  messages  to  the 
seven  churches  of  Asia,  a  mj'sterious  voice  calls  the  seer 
to  heaven  and  promises  to  show  him  the  events  which 
must  shortly  come  to  pass  (iv.  1).  These  events  are 
connected,  more  or  less  closely,  with  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  of  Rome,  and  with  the  return  of  the  Lord 
for  the  salvation  of  his  people  and  the  destruction  of  his 
foes.  Here  the  glory  of  God  is  described  in  striking 
imagery.  He  is  seated  in  heavenly  splendor  upon  his 
throne,  surrounded  by  the  figures  which  represent  the 
Church  (elders)  and  the  powers  of  nature  (living  creat- 
ures), and  other  symbols  of  less  certain  meaning,  generally 
presented  under  the  sacred  number  seven.  This  chapter, 
whatever  its  details  mean,  is  a  splendid  description  of  the 
supremacy  of  God,  and  of  the  homage  of  the  universe  to 
him. 

Chapter  v.  opens  with  the  description  of  a  sealed  book 
—  symbol  of  the  mysteries  of  the  future.      In   a   most 

1  Both  the  analysis  and  the  unity  are  maintained  by  Briggs,  Messiah 
of  the  Apostles,  p.  289. 
2  m 


530       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

striking  way  the  thought  is  presented  that  only  Jesus 
can  open  this  book.  The  Messiah  alone  holds  the  key 
of  the  future  ;  he  alone  can  unlock  the  mystery  of  provi- 
dence. The  representatives  of  the  Church  and  of  nature 
(elders  and  living  creatures,  v.  8)  reverently  ascribe  to 
the  Lamb  alone  power  to  open  this  mysterious  book ; 
and  this  is.  true  because  he  is  the  Redeemer  (yv.  9,  10). 
Angels  join  this  chorus  of  praise,  and  then  the  opening  of 
the  seals  begins. 

At  the  opening  of  the  first  seal  (vi.  1,  2),  a  white  horse 
—  a  good  omen  —  appears ;  on  him  is  seated  the  conquer- 
ing Christ.  The  first  mystery  of  the  book  is  that  Christ 
shall  triumph  over  all  foes.  The  opening  of  the  second 
seal  discloses  a  very  different  omen.  A  blood-red  horse 
a23pears,  and  on  it  sits  one  armed  with  a  sword,  who  takes 
away  peace  from  the  earth  (yv.  3,  4).  It  is  the  symbol 
of  war.  Next  comes  a  black  horse,  and  a  voice  is  heard 
announcing  the  price  of  a  morsel  of  wheat  or  barley 
(yv.  5,  6).  This  horse  and  his  rider  represent  famine. 
The  opening  of  the  fourth  mystery  reveals  a  pale  horse, 
on  which  sits  Death,  and  after  him  follows  Hades  — 
the  realm  of  Death  (personified)  —  to  claim  his  prey 
(yv.  7,  8).  The  breaking  of  the  fifth  seal  discloses  a 
picture  of  persecution  and  martyrdom,  in  which  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ  are  heard  to  cry :  "  How  long,  O  Master  ?  " 
in  anguish  of  spirit,  and  are  seen  to  receive  the  white 
robe  of  righteousness  (vv.  9-11).  When  the  sixth  seal 
is  opened,  a  terrific  catastrophe  overtakes  the  physical 
world  (yv.  12-17).  It  is  a  time  of  terror  and  of  judgment. 
The  whole  description  of  chapter  vi.  is  an  apocalyptic 
picture  of  the  calamities  and  judgments  which  are  to 
come  upon  those  who  spurn  Christ  and  persecute  his 
followers.  Similar  modes  of  describing  great  crises  are 
found  in  the  prophets,  as  in  Joel  ii.  28-32  —  a  passage 
of  which  Peter  sees  the  fulfilment  in  the  events  of  Pente- 
cost (Acts  ii.  16-21).  Indeed,  to  a  considerable  extent, 
our  Lord's  descriiDtion  of  his  second  coming,  as  presented 
in  Matthew  xxiv.,  is  embodied  in  similar  pictures  and 
symbols. 


INTRODUCTORY  531 

The  description  now  pauses,  before  the  opening  of  the 
seventh  and  last  seal,  in  order  that  a  picture  of  the  host  of 
the  redeemed  may  be  presented  (ch.  vii.).  It  is  a  scene 
of  peace,  in  which  an  angel  sets  the  seal  of  God  upon  the 
vast  and  countless  multitude  of  the  redeemed,  who  now 
join  the  universal  chorus  of  praise  to  God  for  his  redeem- 
ing love  (vii.  1-12).  The  seer  is  now  asked:  Who  are 
they  who  are  arrayed  in  white  robes  ?  and  is  told  that 
they  are  those  whom  the  Lamb  has  redeemed,  and  that  they 
live  henceforth  in  blessed  fellowship  with  him  (^vv.  13-17). 
This  episode  of  the  seventh  chapter  is  intended  to  enhance 
the  interest  with  which  the  opening  of  the  last  seal  is 
awaited. 

And  now,  at  the  dread  moment  of  the  opening  of  the 
seventh  seal,  all  heaven  waits  in  silent  expectancy  (viii.  1). 
The  contents  of  this  last  mystery  are  presented  in  a 
peculiar  and  elaborate  manner.  When  the  seventh  seal 
is  broken,  seven  angels  appear  with  trumpets,  to  proclaim 
the  revelation  of  the  final  mysteries.  Thus  we  pass  from 
the  seven  seals  to  the  seven  angels  and  the  seven  trumpets. 
As  these  are  sounded,  one  after  the  other,  the  terrible 
events  which  constitute  the  contents  of  the  seventh 
mystery  occur  one  by  one.  The  detailed  interpretation 
of  the  symbols  under  which  the  events  proclaimed  by  the 
trumpets  are  portrayed  is  very  difficult  (ch.  viii.)  ;  but  in 
general  the  trumpets  announce  signs  and  portents  of  the 
coming  judgment,  when  the  Messiah  shall  appear  for  the 
destruction  of  his  enemies  and  the  glorification  of  his 
saints. 

Just  as  before  the  opening  of  the  seventh  seal  was  long 
delayed  (ch.  vii.),  so  now  the  sounding  of  the  seventh 
trumpet  is  deferred  until  a  long  episode  (x.  1-xi.  14) 
is  introduced.  This  passage  includes  a  solemn  proclama- 
tion of  the  near-approaching  end,  a  symbolic  descrip- 
tion —  under  the  figure  of  the  little  book  which  is 
sweet  to  the  taste,  but  afterwards  bitter  —  of  the  min- 
gled joy  and  sorrow  which  the  end  will  bring  (x.  9- 
11),  and  the  abandonment  of  Jerusalem  to  destruction. 
In  this  connection  the  faithful  testimony  of  the   Chris- 


532       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

tians  and  the  cruelty  of  tlieir  persecutions  are  depicted 
(xi.  1-14). 

And  now  the  seventh  trumpet  sounds,  proclaiming  Mes- 
siah's triumph  (xi.  15-18).  Heaven  is  opened  (xi.  19) 
and  certain  great  mysteries  are  disclosed.  First  appears 
the  mystic  figure  of  "a  woman  arrayed  with  the  sun" 
(xii.  1)  —  a  symbol,  probably,  of  the  Old  Testament  Church 
whence  the  Redeemer  proceeds.  A  second  sign  appears, 
"a  great  red  dragon,"  "which  is  called  the  Devil  and 
Satan,  the  deceiver  of  the  whole  world"  (xii.  9),  who 
makes  the  evil  world-power,  the  Roman  Empire,  his  in- 
strument. The  dragon  has  seven  heads  (emperors)  and 
ten  horns  (perhaps  provincial  governors).  This  satanic 
power  desires  to  devour  the  Messiah  when  he  shall  be 
born ;  but  he  is  rescued  and  is  caught  up  on  high  unto 
God's  throne  (xii.  3-6)  Then  follows  a  deadly  conflict 
between  the  world-power  and  the  heavenly  powers,  in 
which  the  latter  are  triumphant  (^vv,  7-12)  ;  and,  again, 
a  picture  —  very  enigmatical  in  its  details  —  of  the  per- 
secutions of  the  Church  by  Antichrist  (yv.  13-17).  The 
same  general  idea  of  the  opposition  of  the  Roman  power 
to  the  Church  is  presented  under  other  forms  in  chapter 
xiii.  A  beast  arises  out  of  the  sea  —  a  symbol  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  or,  possibly,  of  the  emperor  personally 
(xiii.  1).  The  ten  horns  of  the  beast  point  to  the  im- 
perial provinces,  the  seven  heads  to  seven  emperors,  and 
the  blasphemous  names  on  the  diadems  to  the  Roman 
worship  of  emperors.  One  head  (emperor)  is  smitten 
unto  death  (?;.  3),  referring  to  the  death  of  Nero.  The 
healing  of  the  death-stroke  may  refer  either  to  the  popular 
belief  of  the  time,  that  Nero  was  not  actually  dead,  but 
was  in  concealment  in  the  East,  and  would  soon  return  in 
greater  power  and  wickedness  than  ever,  or  to  the  return 
of  his  antichristian  spirit  in  the  persecuting  Emperor 
Domitian.  The  worship  of  the  emperor  and  his  persecu- 
tions of  tlie  Christians  are  referred  to  in  verses  4-10. 
Next  appears  (^vv.  11-17)  a  beast  coming  uj)  from  the 
land,  apparently  denoting  false  prophecy  or  a  false  Mes- 
siah.    He  is  the  ally  of   the   beast   from   the  sea.     His 


INTEODUCTORY  533 

position  is  subordinate  to  the  Roman  power,  wliich  con- 
tinues to  be  called  "the  beast"  (v.  17).  And  now  the 
name  of  "the  beast"  is  given  in  a  mystic  number,  666. 
Probably  the  meaning  is  that  if  the  numerical  value  of  the 
letters  which  spell  the  name  of  the  beast  be  taken,  the  sum 
of  the  numbers  would  be  6Q6.  If  the  words  "Nero 
Caesar  "  are  written  in  Hebrew  letters,  and  the  numerical 
values  of  the  letters  are  added  together,  the  result  is  66Q. 
If  Lateinos  (Latin)  is  Avritten  in  Greek  letters,  the  result 
is  the  same.  Very  probably  the  mystic  name  of  the  beast 
is  either  Nero  Csesar  or  Lateinos.  In  either  case  it  is  a 
veiled  designation  of  the  Roman  power. ^ 

Chapter  xiv.  is  an  episode  preceding  the  introduction 
of  the  cycle  of  the  seven  vials  or  bowls,  and  presents 
still  further  pictures  of  the  supremacy  and  triumph 
of  Christ,  and  of  the  certainty  and  terribleness  of  his 
judgment  upon  his  foes.  This  last  thought  becomes  the 
keynote  of  the  chapters  which  follow.  The  bowls  of 
divine  wrath  are  poured  out  upon  the  sinful  world  (chs. 
xv.-xvii.).  This  cycle  of  woes  ends  with  the  utter  de- 
struction of  the  mystic  Babylon,  the  beast,  or  the  "  woman 
drunken  with  the  blood  of  the  saints"  (signifying  the 
horrors  of  persecution),  as  Rome  is  variously  called  (xvii. 
1-6).  And  now  another  mystic  explanation  of  the  seer's 
meaning  is  given  (which  is,  in  part,  a  repetition).  The 
beast  that  "  was  and  is  not "  (xvii.  8)  is  Nero.  His  coming 
up  from  the  abyss  and  the  healing  of  his  death-stroke  (xiii. 
3)  are  thought  by  many  interpreters  to  refer  to  the  popu- 
lar expectation  of  his  return  to  Rome.  If  it  does  not,  the 
reference  is  probably  to  Domitian,  as  already  indicated. 
Tlie  view  taken  on  this  point  influences  the  interpretation 
of  verses  10-12.  In  any  case  the  seven  mountains  are  the 
seven  hills  of  Rome  on  which  "the  woman"  (the  city) 
sits.  The  five  fallen  "  kings "  are  Augustus,  Tiberius, 
Caligula,  Claudius,  and  Nero.  The  one  that  is  may  be 
either   Galba  or  (if  the  three  "rebellious  princes,"  who 

iBriggs  regards  the  number  666  as  denoting  "a  straining  after  the 
holy  number  7,"  "the  anti-Lamb"  or  false  Messiah.  Messiah  of  the 
Apostles,  p.  324. 


534       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

reigned  for  so  short  a  time  and  were  never  fully  acknowl- 
edged, are  not  counted)  Vespasian.  If  the  sixth  is  Galba, 
the  seventh  is  Otho;  if  the  sixth  is  Vespasian,  the  seventh 
is  Titus.  The  view  that  "the  eighth"  is  Nero  is  ad- 
justable to  either  opinion  as  to  the  sixth  and  seventh 
(whether  Galba  and  Otho,  or  Vespasian  and  Titus).  The 
theory  which  makes  Domitian  the  eighth  is  reconcilable 
only  with  the  supposition  that  Vespasian  and  Titus  are 
the  sixth  and  seventh.  On  the  view  that  Nero  is  the 
eighth,  the  statement  that  the  eighth  "  is  one  of  the  seven  " 
(v.  11)  is  understood  to  mean  that  he  is  both  the  fifth  and 
the  eighth ;  on  the  theory  that  Domitian  is  the  eighth, 
he  is  said  to  be  "of  the  seven,"  not  in  the  sense  of 
being  one  of  the  number,  but  in  that  of  derivation  or 
descent. 

Again  the  destruction  of  Rome  is  proclaimed  (ch.  xviii.), 
and  the  triumph  of  Christ  is  celebrated  by  angelic  choruses 
(ch.  xix).  Then  Satan  is  bound  for  a  thousand  years  (the 
millennium).  The  faithful  dead  are  raised  and  reign  with 
Christ  during  this  period,  at  the  end  of  which  the  general 
resurrection  takes  place  (xx.  1-6).  Whether  this  descrip- 
tion is  to  be  taken  literally  or  figuratively  is  disputed.  At 
the  end  of  the  millennium  a  new  conflict  with  Satan  takes 
place,  which  ends  in  his  complete  overthrow  (yv.  7-10). 
Next  lollows  the  final  judgment  (^vv,  11-15)  and  the  con- 
summation of  the  Kingdom  of  God  (chs.  xxi.,  xxii.). 
The  new  Jerusalem,  the  heavenly  city  of  God,  in  all  its 
splendor  and  purity  appears.  The  two  closing  chapters 
represent  the  culmination  of  the  great  drama  of  conflict 
and  judgment  in  a  scene  of  eternal  peace  and  joy.  The 
key -thought  of  the  book  is  that  of  Christ's  speedy  coming 
to  judge  the  world,  and  especially  to  destroy  the  hated 
Roman  power,  and  to  rescue  his  followers  from  their  per- 
secutions. All  the  events  described  are  seen  by  the  seer 
as  in  the  near  future  (i.  1);  and  the  book  closes  with  the 
united  prayer  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy  and  of  the  Church 
(bride),  that  Christ  would  come  (xxii.  17),  to  which  the 
answer  is  given:  "Yea,  I  come  quickly"  (xxii.  20).  The 
writer  appends  (xxii.  18,  19)  a  solemn  warning  against 


INTEODUCTOBY  535 

any  alteration  of  his  book,  in  apparent  imitation  of  similar 
threats  in  the  Old  Testament  (Deut.  iv.  2).  The  book  is 
a  picture  of  the  persecuted  Church,  a  prophecy  of  her  cer- 
tain deliverance  by  her  heavenly  Redeemer,  a  delineation 
of  the  supremacy  and  triumph  of  Christ  over  every  foe, 
and  of  the  glory  which  awaits  his  faithful  disciples. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  LAMB   OF   GOD 

The  Apocalypse  pictures  the  Messiah  chiefly  as  Re- 
deemer and  King,  but  his  character  as  such  presupposes 
his  earthly  life.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  he  is  most 
frequently  designated  by  his  personal  name  Jesus  (i.  9 ; 
xii.  17  et  al.},  less  frequently  by  "the  Christ  "or  Messiah 
(xi.  15  et  al.}.  The  author  mentions  his  descent  from 
the  tribe  of  Judah  and  from  the  family  of  David  (v.  5  ; 
xxii.  16).  He  is  represented  as  the  child  of  the  Jewish 
theocracy,  which  is  symbolized  by  the  figure  of  "  a  woman 
arrayed  with  the  sun "  (xii.  1),  who  brought  forth  the 
child  who  should  rule  over  the  nations,  and  who,  in 
turn,  was  threatened  and  persecuted  by  the  evil  world- 
power  represented  by  the  "great  red  dragon"  (xii.  3,  6). 
The  number  of  Jesus'  apostles  (xxi.  14),  his  death  in 
Jerusalem  (xi.  8),  his  resurrection  (i.  5,  18),  and  his 
exaltation  (iii.  21 ;  xii.  5)  are  all  alluded  to.  That  he 
is  contemplated  as  a  priest  is  clear  from  the  descrip- 
tion of  him  in  i.  13,  as  "clothed  with  a  garment  down 
to  the  foot,  and  girt  about  at  the  breasts  with  a  golden 
girdle." 

But  the  most  characteristic  designation  of  the  Saviour 
is  "the  Lamb  of  God,"  which  occurs  twenty-nine  times. 
Whether  it  is  a  reminiscence  of  the  description  of  the 
suffering  Servant  of  Jehovah,  under  the  figure  of  a  lamb, 
in  Isa.  liii.  7,  or  points  to  the  Passover  lamb,  or  to  the 
covenant  offerings,  or  represents  a  combination  of  ideas 
which  is  no  longer  directly  dependent  upon  any  one  of 
these  Old  Testament  conceptions,  we  cannot  certainly 
determine.  In  any  case  "  the  Lamb "  is  a  symbol  of 
obedient  and  self-denying  love.      The  title  is  meant  to 

536 


THE   LAMB   OF   GOD  537 

portray  him  "  who  loveth  us  and  loosed  ^  us  from  our  sins 
by  his  blood"  (i.  5).  It  is  "in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb" 
that  the  saints  have  "  washed  their  robes  and  made  them 
clean  "  (vii.  14 ;  xxii.  14) ;  that  is,  the  death  of  Christ  is 
redemptive  ;  it  is  a  means  of  purification  from  sin.  The 
same  truth  is  expressed  under  the  figure  of  purchase 
(a<yopd^eLv)  when  it  is  said :  ''  Thou  wast  slain,  and  didst 
purchase  unto  God  with  thy  blood  men  of  every  tribe,  and 
tongue,  and  people,  and  nation,  and  madest  them  to  be 
unto  our  God  a  kingdom  and  priests  "  (v.  9  ;  ef,  xiv.  3, 4). 
Although  no  formulated  doctrine  of  the  person  and  work 
of  Christ  should  be  sought  in  the  Apocalypse,  it  will  be 
found  that  the  book  is  peculiarly  rich  in  its  descriptions 
of  the  dignity  and  glory  of  his  person  and  of  the  surpass- 
ing greatness  of  his  redeeming  work.  He  is  "  the  faithful 
witness,  the  first-born  of  the  dead,  and  the  ruler  of  the 
kings  of  the  earth  "  (i.  5)  ;  "  the  Lord  of  lords  and  King 
of  kings  "  (xvii.  14  ;  xix.  16).  The  most  striking  imagery 
is  employed  to  describe  his  dignit}^  and  authority.  With 
eyes  like  a  flame  of  fire,  feet  like  unto  burnished  brass, 
and  a  voice  as  the  voice  of  many  waters,  he  walks  in  the 
midst  of  the  seven  golden  candlesticks  (i.  12-15),  that  is, 
appears  as  sovereign  Lord  of  the  Church.  In  his  right 
hand  he  holds  seven  stars  ;  a  sharp  sword  issues  from 
his  mouth,  and  his  countenance  is  like  the  sun  shining  in 
his  strength  (i.  16,  17).  The  "angels  of  the  churches," ^ 
symbolized  by  stars  (i.  20),  are  in  his  power ;  he  utters 
the  sharp  and  searching  word  of  God  (cf.  Heb.  iv.  12  and 
Wisd.  Sol.  xviii.  15,  16),  and  is  clothed  with  surpassing 
glory.  His  authority  extends  to  all  nations  (xii.  5).  In 
allusion  to  Dan.  vii.  13  he  is  called  "one  like  unto  a  son 
of  man "  (i.  13  ;  xiv.  14),  in  contrast  to  the  world- 
powers,  symbolized  by  "beasts."  Soon  this  exalted  One 
will  come  again  in  power  and  glory  to  judge  the  world 
and  save  his  people  (i.  7  ;  xiv.  14-16  ;  xxii.  20);  as  "the 

1  The  reading  \ia-avTL    (loosed)    is  better   supported    than    \oiaavTi 
(washed).      So  the  critical  texts  and  R.  V.  vs.  the  Textus  Receptus. 

2  By  angels  here  are  probably  meant  guardian  angels,  rather  than  the 
rulers  or  the  characters  of  the  churches  personified. 


538       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

bright,  the  morning  star "  (xxii.  16)  he  will  then  rise 
upon  the  world  and  usher  in  the  consummation  of  his 
Kingdom. 

But  our  author  goes  further.  To  Christ  are  paid  divine 
honors.  The  praises  of  the  redeemed  are  ascribed  ''unto 
God  and  unto  the  Lamb"  (vii.  10);  an  innumerable  host 
unites  in  the  doxology :  "  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  hath 
been  slain  to  receive  the  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom, 
and  might,  and  honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing"  (v.  12). 
The  elders  who  bear  the  "  golden  bowls  of  incense,  which 
are  the  prayers  of  the  saints,"  fall  down  before  the  Lamb 
(v.  8)  ;  while  angels,  refusing  all  worship  for  themselves 
(xix.  10  ;  xxii.  8,  9),  join  with  all  creatures  in  worshipping 
only  God  and  the  Lamb  (v.  11  sg.).  During  the  millennial 
reign  of  the  saints  (xx.  4)  priests  minister  to  him  as  to 
God  himself  (xx.  6).  He  holds  the  keys  of  Hades  and 
of  death  (i.  18),  that  is,  determines  who  shall  enter  and 
who  shall  be  released  from  the  realms  of  the  dead.  He 
sits  with  God  in  his  throne  (iii.  21 ;  vii.  17  ;  xii.  5),  which 
is  now  called  "  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb  "  (xxii. 
1,  3).  He  is  the  assessor  of  God  in  judgment  (vi.  16, 17). 
Many  Old  Testament  designations  of  Jehovah  are  freely 
applied  to  him,  as  where  the  description  of  "  the  ancient 
of  days  "  (Dan.  vii.  9)  is  transferred  to  Christ  (i.  14,  15), 
and  the  searching  of  the  hearts  and  reins  ascribed  to  Jeho- 
vah (Ps.  vii.  9)  is  attributed  to  him  (ii.  23).  While  it  is 
true  that  believers  are  children  of  the  theocracy  (xii.  17) 
and  sons  of  God  (xxi.  7),  it  also  appears  that  the  sonship 
of  Christ  to  God  is  regarded  as  quite  unique.  From  "  his 
God  and  Father  "  (i.  6)  he  has  received  supreme  author- 
ity (ii.  27),  and  has  accordingly  sat  down  with  his  Father 
in  his  throne  (iii.  21). 

But  is  Christ  also,  for  our  author,  a  preexistent  and  eter- 
nal Being  ?  In  connection  with  this  question  the  princi- 
pal passages  to  be  considered  are  as  follows  :  "  I  am  the 
first  and  the  last,  and  the  Living  one  "  (i.  17, 18  ;  cf.  i.  8) ; 
"  I  am  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last, 
the  beginning  and  the  end"  (xxii.  13;  <?/.  xxi.  6)  ;  "These 
things  saith  the  Amen,  the  faithful  and  true  witness,  the 


THE  LAMB   OF  GOD  539 

beginning  of  the  creation  of  God"  (77  a/jp^^  t^9  KTi(r€(o<; 
Tov  Oeov^  iii.  14) ;  ''  And  he  hath  a  name  written,  which 
no  one  knoweth  but  he  himself.  .  .  .  And  his  name  is 
called  The  Word  of  God"  (o  \0709  tov  Oeov,  xix.  12  ;  cf. 
iii.  2).  Certain  it  is  that  the  passages  first  mentioned 
apply  to  Christ  language  which  the  Old  Testament  uses 
to  describe  the  absolute  eternity  of  God.  See  Isa.  xliv.  6: 
"  I  am  the  first  and  the  last ;  and  beside  me  there  is  no 
God."  In  such  a  connection  ''the  Living  one"  (0  fwz^) 
can  hardly  refer  to  anything  less  than  an  absolute  life.^ 
Like  God,  he  ''  liveth  for  ever  and  ever  "  (iv.  9, 10  ;  x.  6). 
The  phrase  :  "  The  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God"  (iii. 
14),  reminds  one  strongly  of  Col.  i.  15,  18 :  "  The  first- 
born of  all  creation "  (nrpcoToroKo^  irdarj^  Krla-ews:)  .  .  . 
"who  is  the  beginning"  (09  icmv  apxv^i  and,  in  the  view 
of  some,  is  a  reminiscence  of  these  Pauline  expressions. ^ 
The  principal  question  of  interpretation  is,  whether  Christ 
as  rj  ap)(7]  TTj^  KTta€(o<;  is  meant  to  be  included  in  the  ktIctl^ 
or  not.  Some  would  render  the  phrase  "  the  principle  of 
the  creation,"  and  would  interpret  it  in  the  sense  in  which 
wisdom  is  depicted  in  Prov.  viii.  22  as  possessed  or  formed 
by  the  Lord  in  the  beginning  of  his  way.  In  that  case 
Christ  would  be  regarded  as  the  first  /crtVi?  of  God,  "  that 
production  of  God  in  which  all  others  are  implied,  and 
by  which  everything  further  is  accomplished."^  Others 
regard  rj  dpxn  as  a  logical  prius  of  rj  ktictl^;^  and  thus  as 
not  included  within  it.*  It  seems  to  me  probable  that  this 
view  is  correct,  although  the  context  does  not  so  clearly 
require  the  interpretation  which  makes  the  relation  of 
Christ  to  the  creation  original  as  it  does  in  the  case  of  the 
similar  phrases  in  Colossians.^    Grammatically  considered, 

1  Beyschlag  says  that  it  "  cannot  be  understood  merely  of  the  resurrec- 
tion life,  which  is  afterwards  described  by  l5ov  ^Cjp  eifxi,  k.t.\.,  but  is  to  be 
understood  of  the  essential  life,  which  not  merely  continues  in  eternity, 
but  also  springs  from  eternity."  N.  T.  Theol.  II.  380  (Bk.  V.  11.  ch.  iii. 
§4). 

2  So  Bousset,  Offenharung  Johannes  (Meyer  Series),  in  loco. 

3  Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theol.  II.  381  (Bk.  V.  ii.  ch.  iii.  §  4). 

4  So  Weiss,  Gebhardt,  Dtisterdieck,  Bleek,  Lechler,  Bousset,  Briggs. 
s  See  p.  394. 


540       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

the  words  may  have  either  meaning.  The  interpretation 
for  which  I  have  expressed  a  preference  rests  mainly  upon 
the  general  representation  of  Christ  as  the  "  first  and  the 
last"  and  the  absolutely  Living  one.  Since  the  view  of 
the  Apocalypse  is  that  he  is  the  beginning  and  goal  of 
human  history,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  phrase  in  question 
means  to  include  him  within  the  created  universe.  This 
view  is  strongly  confirmed  if  we  suppose  that  the  passage 
under  consideration  is  dependent  upon  Colossians.  The 
question  turns  chiefly  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  book  as  a 
whole.  Christ  is  one  who  calls  Grod  Father  in  a  unique 
sense  (i.  6;  ii.  27;  iii.  5,  21;  xiv.  1);  the  designation 
"  our  Father  "  does  not  appear.  He  is  one  to  whom  the 
mystic  sevenfold  perfection  of  God  is  ascribed  (iii.  1 ;  v. 
6;  c/".  i.  4;  iv.  5).  He  possesses  the  secret  of  Jehovah, 
and  writes  his  mysterious  name  upon  the  foreheads  of  the 
saints  (ii.  17  ;  iii.  12  ;  xiv.  1). 

What  now  is  "his  own  new  name"  (iii.  12),  "the 
name  which  no  one  knoweth  but  himself"  (xix.  12),  which 
he  will  also  write  upon  the  faithful  ?  Some  suppose  that 
the  answer  is  given  in  xix.  13  :  "  And  his  name  is  called 
the  LoQfos  of  God."i  Others  think  that  it  is  vain  to  search 
for  an  answer  to  this  question,  since  the  mysterious  name 
is  expressly  said  to  be  unknown  to  any  except  Christ  him- 
self. 2  Still  others,  finding  an  inconsistency  between  the 
statements  that  the  name  is  unknown,  and  that  it  is  the 
Logos,  conclude  that  the  latter  assertion  is  an  interpolation 
supplied  by  a  later  writer  from  the  prologue  of  the  fourth 
Gospel.^  We  should  probably  seek  no  definite  answer  to 
the  question  :  What  is  this  incommunicable  name  ?  It 
appears  to  be  a  symbol  for  the  secret  of  the  Messiah,  the 
incomparable  majesty  and  power  which  belong  to  him  as 
the  vicegerent  of  God,  the  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of 
lords.  The  glory  of  his  person  and  the  triumph  of  his 
Kingdom  are  mysteries  which  no  mind  can  fully  fathom. 
The  terms  used  denote  the  transcendence  of  Christ,  his 

1  So  Gess,  Gebhardt,  Weiss,  Beyschlag,  Weizsacker. 

2  So  Bleek,  Diisterdieck,  Bousset. 

3  So  Volter,  Vischer,  Spitta,  Pfleiderer,  and,  apparently,  Briggs. 


THE  LAMB   OF   GOD  541 

unique  and  absolute  superiority.  Doubts  as  to  the  origi- 
nality of  the  title  "  the  Logos  of  God,"  and  the  fact  that 
its  meaning  is  left  wholly  unexplained,  preclude  us  from 
building  too  confidently  any  conclusion  upon  it.  Inter- 
preters who  treat  it  as  genuine  are  quite  divided  in 
opinion  as  to  the  aspect  of  Christ's  person  and  work  which 
it  is  intended  to  emphasize.  ^ 

Making  all  allowance,  then,  for  the  uncertainties  which 
attach  to  individual  passages  and  phrases,  the  question  re- 
curs :  Does  the  Apocalypse  represent  Christ  as  a  pre-tem- 
poral,  eternal  Being  —  as  one  who  is,  in  the  proper  sense, 
divine  ?  In  answering  this  question  affirmatively,  I  will 
cite  the  verdicts  of  several  writers  of  various  schools. 
"  We  must  recognize  without  hesitation  that  Christ,  in  the 
Apocalypse,  is  elevated  to  the  plane  of  God  (au  niveau  de 
Dieu).  He  is  named  the  first  and  the  last,  the  beginning 
and  the  end,  and  these  same  formulas  are  employed  to 
designate  the  Supreme  Being." 2  "The  fact  that  the 
Messiah  is  an  originally  divine  Being  (gottliches  Wesen) 
is  taken  for  granted. "^  "We  find  some  statements  of  a 
Godlike  character  which  cannot  be  explained  by  a  divine 
glory  won  on  earth."*  The  last-named  writer,  however, 
attributes  this  deification  of  Christ  (as  in  the  case  of  Paul, 
John,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews)  to  the  naive  confu- 
sion by  the  Biblical  authors  of  a  person  with  an  idea.^ 

1  Weiss:  "The  executor  of  the  divine  (judicial)  will,"  Bihl.  Theol. 
§  134,  d  5  ;.  Gebhardt  refers  it  to  Christ's  preexistence  and  creative  activ- 
ity, Boct.  of  Apoc.  p.  94  sq.;  Beyschlag:  "The  reappearing  heavenly 
Victor,"  N.  T.  Theol.  11.  382  (Bk.  V.  ii.  ch.  iii.  §  4)  ;  Lechler :  "The 
personal  bearer  of  divine  wisdom  and  power,  the  Mediator  of  all  divine 
self-revelation,"  Apos.  71.  nachapos.  Zeitalt.,  p.  449. 

2  Eeuss,  Hist.  Theol.  Cret.  I.  461. 

3  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  §  134,  d. 

*  Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theol.  II.  379  (Bk.  V.  ii.  ch.  iii.  §  4). 

5  "  Here,  then,  we  have  essentially  the  same  idea  of  preexistence  as  we 
have  in  Paul  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  application  of  the 
idea  of  the  eternal  self -revelation  of  God  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah. 
But  there  as  here  we  have  a  gap  in  thought ;  by  personifying  an  idea  we 
may  hide  from  ourselves  the  fact  that,  in  recognizing  the  idea  in  the  per- 
son of  Jesus,  a  historical  person  is  coordinated  with  something  which, 
however  realistically  conceived,  is  not  a  person  but  an  idea."  Op.  cit., 
ut  supra. 


542       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

This  august  personage,  who  sits  on  a  throne  of  splendor, 
clothed  with  all  knowledge  and  power,  is  able  to  read  the 
riddle  of  the  future  and  actually  to  solve  it  (v.  2).  "  The 
Lion  that  is  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  the  Root  of  David, 
hath  overcome  to  open  the  book  and  the  seven  seals 
thereof"  (v.  5).  The  seer  is  bidden  to  look  and  behold 
the  victorious  Lion,  the  all-conquering  Messiah,  who  can 
unlock  the  secrets  which  the  future  holds  in  store,  and 
guarantee  success  to  the  persecuted  cause  of  truth  and 
righteousness.  And  he  looked,  and  "  behold,  in  the  midst 
of  the  throne  stood  a  Lamb,  as  though  it  had  been  slain  " 
(v.  6).  He  looked  to  see  a  Lion  and  beheld  a  Lamb.  He 
looked  to  see  power  and  force,  whereby  the  foes  of  his 
faith  should  be  destroyed,  and  he  saw  love  and  gentleness 
by  which  they  should  be  conquered  by  being  transformed 
into  friends.  The  might  of  Christ  is  the  power  of  love. 
The  captive  train  which  he  leads  in  his  triumphal  march 
is  composed  of  those  who  are  bound  to  him  by  the  golden 
chains  of  love  and  gratitude.  The  Lamb,  as  though  it 
had  been  slain,  stands  in  the  midst  of  God's  throne.  At 
the  heart  of  God's  sovereignty  is  sacrificial  and  suffering 
love.  The  almighty  will  of  God  is  a  will  of  love.  The 
power  of  God  serves  the  ends  of  his  grace,  and  it  is  to 
the  God  who  gives  his  Son  in  sacrificial  and  suffering  love 
that  the  swelling  chorus  of  praise  is  uplifted:  "Worthy 
is  the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain  to  receive  the  power,  and 
riches,  and  wisdom,  and  might,  and  honor,  and  glory,  and 
blessing.  And  every  created  thing  which  is  in  heaven, 
and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  on  the  sea,  and 
all  things  that  are  in  them,  heard  I  saying.  Unto  him  that 
sitteth  on  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  be  the  blessing, 
and  the  honor,  and  the  glory,  and  the  dominion,  for  ever 
and  ever"  (v.  12,  13). 


CHAPTER   III 

THE  CHRISTIAN  COMMUNITY 

The  Apocalypse  speaks  only  of  individual  churches, 
although  it  has  the  idea  of  a  collective  community  of  be- 
lievers which  is  called  ^'  the  bride  or  wife  of  the  Lamb  " 
(xix.  7;  xxi.  2;  xxii.  17).  Christians  are  usually  desig- 
nated as  "  saints,"  or  as  those  who  worship,  fear,  and  serve 
God  (xi.  18;  xix.  2-5).  As  such  they  constitute  a  holy 
priesthood  unto  God  (i.  6).  These  phrases  have  a  Jew- 
ish sound,  but  they  are  easily  matched  by  others  which 
bear  a  more  universalistic  character.  The  community  of 
the  redeemed  is  gathered  from  "  every  tribe,  and  tongue, 
and  people,  and  nation  "  (v.  9).  Jewish  forms  of  thought, 
derived  from  prophecy,  or  from  current  apocalyptic  lan- 
guage, are  common,  but  they  are  so  blended  with  Christian 
conceptions  as  practically  to  receive  a  new  meaning.  If, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  Lamb  stands  with  his  elect  on  Mount 
Zion  (xiv.  1),  and  the  descending  city  of  God  is  a  new 
Jerusalem  (xxi.  2);  if  the  Kingdom  has  its  capital  for  a 
time  in  the  holy  city  (xx.  9),  and  the  kernel  of  the  Church 
is  pictured  as  144,000  —  an  equal  number  from  each  of 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  (vii.  4-8)  ;  yet,  on  the  other 
hand,  all  believers  are  priests  (v.  10) ;  the  book  makes  no 
mention  of  circumcision  and  shows  no  trace  of  regarding 
the  ceremonial  law  as  valid ;  the  Church  is  composed  of 
an  innumerable  multitude  gathered  out  of  every  nation 
(vii.  9).  As  with  Paul,  Christians  constitute  the  true 
Israel  (ii.  9);  Jews  who  revile  Christ  and  persecute  his 
followers  are  "  a  synagogue  of  Satan  "  (iii.  9).  If  the  book 
is  a  composite  of  Jewish  and  Christian  elements,  as  some 
critics  suppose,  the  materials  have  been  so  blended  as  to 
yield  a  distinctly  Christian  and  universal  gospel.     In  its 

543 


544       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

language  and  symbolisms  the  Apocalypse  is,  indeed,  the 
most  Jewish  book  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  that  is  only 
to  say  that  it  is  an  apocalypse.  It  is  not  a  Judaizing 
book.  To  find  in  the  reproofs  directed  against  the  here- 
tics and  "  false  apostles,"  who  had  invaded  the  churches 
of  Asia,  attacks  upon  the  apostle  Paul  is  preposterous.  A 
tone  of  universalism  runs  through  the  whole  book.  "  The 
author  knew  no  people  of  God  but  the  Christians,  and  no 
Judaism  but  that  of  the  gospel."  ^ 

The  messages  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia  furnish  us 
an  outline  picture  of  the  conditions  which  obtained  in  that 
part  of  the  Christian  world  where  the  Apocalypse  took  its 
rise.  The  church  at  Ephesus  had  patiently  suffered  per- 
secution for  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  had  repudiated  the 
false  teachers  who  had  sought  to  lead  it  astray  from  the 
truth.  These  Nicolaitans  seem  to  have  been  libertines 
and  antinomians  who  tempted  the  Christians  to  idolatrous 
and  licentious  practices,  as  Balaam  tempted  the  Israelites 
(ii.  6,  14,  15).  The  prophecy  of  Paul  spoken  to  the 
Ephesian  elders  at  Miletus  (Acts  xx.  29,  30)  has  come 
true,  and  the  church  is  now  warned  again  to  beware  of 
the  corrupt  teachers,  and  to  renew  the  love  and  zeal  which 
they  had  formerly  shown  in  the  service  of  Christ  (ii.  4-7). 

The  poor  church  of  Smyrna  (ii.  8  sq.}  and  the  small 
one  of  Philadelphia  (iii.  7  sq.^  receive  unqualified  praise. 
The  former  has  suffered  bitter  pei^secutions  at  the  hands 
of  the  hostile  Jews  ;  some  of  them  are  facing  the  prospect 
of  imprisonment,  but  it  will  be  short ;  if  their  sufferings 
terminate  in  death,  the  crown  of  life  is  just  beyond.  The 
feeble  but  faithful  little  congregation  of  Philadelphia 
shall  triumph  over  all  their  foes  in  the  day  of  Messiah's 
coming.  Then  their  faithfulness  will  have  its  reward, 
and  upon  their  foreheads  the  triumphant  Messiah  will 
write  the  name  of  God,  and  of  the  new  Jerusalem  which 
Cometh  down  from  God  out  of  heaven,  and  his  own  new 
name  (iii.  12) ;  that  is,  he  will  seal  them  for  his  own  and 
assign  them  to  a  place  in  God's  eternal  Kingdom. 

The  churches  at  Pergamum  and  Thyatira  (ii.  12-29) 

1  Weizsacker,  Apostolic  Age,  II.  199  (orig.  p.  526). 


THE   CHRISTIAN   COMMUNITY  545 

have  both  fallen  a  prey,  in  part,  to  the  seductions  of  the 
false  and  corrupt  teachers.  In  Pergamum  Satan  has  his 
throne  (ii.  13);  that  is,  some  form  of  fanatical  and  cor- 
rupting heathen  worship  is  there  practised.  Some  of  the 
believers  have  yielded  to  the  influence  of  libertinism  and 
a  great  danger  threatens  the  church  ;  but  the  majority 
are  still  loyal  and  one,  at  least,  has  attested  his  fidelity  by 
martyrdom  (ii.  13).  In  Thyatira  a  pretended  prophetess 
—  symbolically  called  Jezebel  —  has  seduced  some  into 
idolatry  and  fornication.  She  and  her  followers  are 
threatened  with  destruction.  As  a  whole  the  church  has 
made  progress.  They  are  counselled  to  cease  to  cultivate 
the  so-called  deeper  knowledge  of  those  who  regard  them- 
selves as  free  from  the  ordinary  requirements  of  Christian 
morality  —  a  knowledge  which  apprehends  only  the  "  deep 
things "  of  Satan  (ii.  24),  not  those  of  God  ;  and  are 
assured  that  only  the  commands  of  Christ  to  live  a  pure 
and  holy  life,  not  the  demands  of  the  Jewish  law,  are 
laid  upon  them  (y.  24). 

The  churches  at  Sardis  and  Laodicea  are  addressed  in 
terms  of  severe  reproof  To  the  former  there  remains 
hardly  more  than  the  semblance  of  the  Christian  life. 
Their  zeal  is  but  a  smouldering  ember,  but  it  may  yet  be 
fanned  into  a  flame  of  devotion.  There  is  a  nucleus  of 
faithful  ones  who  have  kept  themselves  unsullied  amid  the 
prevalent  corruption.  The  church  is  warned  of  its  peril 
and  is  urged  to  repentance  and  reform  (iii.  1-6).  The 
condition  of  the  Laodicean  church  is  even  more  deplor- 
able. It  is  composed  of  "  lukewarm  "  people,  who  have 
accepted  the  truths  of  the  gospel  with  a  passive  acquies- 
cence. They  are  not  interested  enough  in  it  to  defend  it 
or  to  suffer  for  it ;  nor  do  they  even  concern  themselves 
about  it  sufficiently  to  repudiate  it.  They  are  neither 
"cold  nor  hot."  Christ,  therefore,  rejects  them  from  his 
fellowship.  He  chides  them  for  their  trust  in  riches,  and 
declares  that  they  are  blind  to  their  utter  spiritual  pov- 
erty. Yet  even  this  lifeless  church  is  not  beyond  recov- 
ery. The  Saviour  stands  before  these  selfish  and  benighted 
professors  of  his  name  in  pleading  love,  and  offers  them 
2n 


b-iij  THE  THEOLOGY   OF   THE  APOCALYPSE 

the  white  robes  in  which  they  may  clothe  themselves, 
promises  them  blessed  fellowship  with  himself,  and  speaks 
the  assurance  of  victory  to  him  who  will  rouse  himself 
from  his  lethargy  and  strive  and  conquer  in  the  good 
fight  of  faith  (iii.  14-22). 

The  book  lays  stress  upon  the  necessity  of  works  of 
righteousness.  " Do  the  first  works "  (ii.  5) ;  "I  know  thy 
works  "  (ii.  19) ;  "  I  will  give  unto  each  one  of  you  ac- 
cording to  your  works "  (ii.  23) ;  "  Their  works  follow 
with  them  "  (who  die  in  the  Lord,  xiv.  13);  "  My  reward 
is  with  me,  to  render  to  each  man  according  as  his  work 
is"  (xxii.  12) — such  are  some  of  the  expressions  of  the 
idea.  What  is  the  nature  of  these  "  works  "  ?  They  cannot 
be  observances  of  the  Mosaic  law,  since  the  book  nowhere 
recognizes  its  obligation.  They  are  rather  regarded  as 
deeds  of  fidelity  and  devotion  to  Christ,  such  as  the  endur- 
ance of  affliction  for  his  sake  and  the  preservation  of  purity 
under  stress  of  temptation.  To  "  keep  Christ's  works  "  is 
"  to  overcome  "  (ii.  26),  that  is,  to  triumph  in  the  moral 
conflict  of  life ;  it  is  to  be  steadfast  amidst  sufferings,  even 
to  the  point  of  forfeiting  life  itself  (xii.  11).  In  ii.  19 
the  "  works  "  of  the  saints  are  explained  by  the  words : 
love,  faith,  ministry,  and  patience,  and  in  iii.  4  the  heav- 
enly reward  is  given  to  those  who  have  lived  an  undefiled 
life.  The  "righteous  acts  (^ScKaicofjiaTa}  of  the  saints" 
(xix.  8),  in  which  they  clothe  themselves  as  with  a  robe, 
consist  in  "  keeping  the  commandments  of  God  and  the 
faith  of  Jesus"  (xiv.  12).  Thus  we  see  that  the  works 
which  are  so  richly  rewarded  are  regarded  as  having  their 
source  and  spring  in  fidelity  to  Christ.  They  are  the 
"works  of  Jesus"  (ii.  26).  No  obligation  beyond  obedi- 
ence to  the  requirements  of  his  gospel  is  laid  upon  the 
Christian  (ii.  24).  To  keep  the  commands  of  God  is 
synonymous  with  holding  the  testimony  of  Jesus  (xii. 
17).  Hence  the  song  of  the  redeemed  is  at  once  the 
song  of  Moses  and  of  the  Lamb  (xv.  3),  and  "  the  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy  "  (xix.  10).  The 
truth  of  Jesus  is  the  touchstone  by  which  to  measure  the 
value  and  determine  the  import  of  law  and  prophecy. 


THE  CHRISTIAN   COMMUNITY  547 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  we  have  in  the  Apocalypse  no 
Judaizing  doctrine  of  works.  Let  us  now  turn  to  its 
teaching  concerning  faith.  From  the  very  nature  of  the 
book  we  should  expect  that,  as  in  Hebrews,  faith  would 
take  on  a  heroic  quality  and  be  especially  shown  in  stead- 
fastness and  patience  under  suffering.  Hence  faith  is 
associated  with  vtto/jlovt],  steadfast  endurance  (xiii.  10; 
xiv.  12).  It  is  viewed  as  a  devoted  attachment  to  Christ's 
person,  which  persecution  is  powerless  to  break  :  "  Thou 
boldest  fast  my  name,  and  didst  not  deny  my  faith" 
(ii.  13),  that  is,  faith  in  me  (Trto-r^?  /jlov').  Hence  the 
writer  speaks  of  "keeping  the  commandments  of  God  and 
the  faith  of  Jesus"  (^Triari^  'Irjaov,  xiv.  12),  that  is,  devot- 
edly adhering  to  confidence  in  Jesus.  But  this  faith  is 
not  a  mere  passive  acquiescence  or  intellectual  belief.  It 
is  the  motive  of  effort  and  achievement ;  it  is  fidelity  even 
unto  death  (ii.  10,  19).  In  it  the  "works  of  Jesus" 
(ii.  26)  have  their  root,  and  when  it  is  said  that  men  will 
be  judged  according  to  their  works  (xx.  12),  the  meaning 
is  not  that  outward  actions  as  such  determine  destiny,  but 
that  the  whole  character,  in  all  its  motives  and  issues,  car- 
ries over  into  the  life  beyond  and  brings  forth  fruit  after 
its  kind.  "Works "  are  not  meritorious  deeds  entitling  the 
doer  of  them  to  salvation  as  a  reward.  Salvation  is  a  free 
gift :  "  I  will  give  unto  him  that  is  athirst  of  the  fountain 
of  the  water  of  life  freely"  (^Scopedv');  "He  that  is  athirst, 
let  him  take  the  water  of  life  freely  "  (xxi.  6 ;  xxii.  17). 
Although  the  saved  have  "  overcome,"  that  is,  achieved  a 
moral  victory  by  effort  and  struggle,  yet  this  victory  is 
not  regarded  as  due  to  their  own  power  or  as  founding  a 
claim  to  heavenly  blessedness ;  they  have  rather  "  over- 
come because  of  the  blood  of  the  Lamb"  (xii.  11);  they 
have  "washed  their  robes  and  made  them  white  in  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb  "  (vii.  14) ;  that  is,  their  salvation  is 
ascribed  to  the  divine  grace  as  revealed  and  applied 
through  the  redeeming  work  of  Clirist.  Here,  as  else- 
where in  the  New  Testament,  the  correlation  between 
grace  and  faith  —  as  opposed  to  debt  and  works  —  is  pre- 
served.    Salvation  is  by  faith  because  it  is  of  grace. 


548      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

Altliough  the  book  emphasizes  so  strongly  the  necessity 
of  suffering  and  of  purity,  it  does  not  give  these  ideas  an 
ascetic  application.  It  does  not  discountenance  marriage, 
as  some  have  thought.  The  "virgins,  who  were  not 
defiled  with  women  "  (xiv.  4),  may  either  refer  to  those 
who  have  abstained  from  all  unchastity,  or  be  taken  as 
a  fiorurative  designation  of  those  who  have  remained  faith- 
ful  to  God,  in  contrast  to  such  as  have  fallen  into  idolatry, 
which  the  Old  Testament  so  often  describes  as  adultery. 
It  is  quite  impossible  that  the  whole  company  of  faithful 
believers,  here  referred  to,  should  be  said  to  have  re- 
nounced the  married  state.  This  is  the  less  likely  since 
the  blessedness  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  is  represented 
by  the  figure  of  a  marriage  feast  (xix.  7-9),  and  the 
favorite  metaphor  to  denote  Christ's  relation  to  his  Church 
is  that  of  a  bridegroom  and  a  bride  (xxi.  2 ;  xxii.  17). 

The  Apocalypse  reflects  but  in  a  very  slight  degree  the 
organization,  customs,  and  observances  of  the  early  Church. 
The  frequent  references  to  elders  as  representatives  of  the 
Christian  community  imply  the  office  of  the  eldership,  but 
throw  no  light  upon  its  nature  and  function  at  the  time 
of  writing.  "  The  Lord's  day  "  (jj  KvpiaKr)  i)/jLepa^  i.  10) 
probably  refers  to  Sunday,  and  is  doubtless  so  called 
because  the  Lord  rose  from  the  dead  on  that  day.  The 
special  mention  of  this  day  as  the  time  when  the  seer  saw 
his  vision  would  seem  to  imply  that  it  was  recognized  as 
a  specially  sacred  day.  Whether  the  designation  here 
employed  was  already  in  use,  or  originated  from  this  pas- 
sage, we  have  no  means  of  knowing.  The  earliest  use  in 
extra-canonical  literature  is  in  the  Didache}  The  "  angels 
of  the  churches,"  as  we  have  already  observed,  are  proba- 
bly not  church  officers,  but  the  guardian  angels  or  genii 
of  the  several  churches  who  are  addressed  under  the 
names  of  the  congregations  which  they  represent.  Apos- 
tles, prophets,  and  martyrs  are  several  times  mentioned 
with  special  honor  (xviii.  20 ;  xxi.  14  ;  ii.  13 ;  vi.  9 ; 
xvii.  6);  but  it  is  improbable  that  the  writer  refers  espe- 
cially to  these  classes  when  he  speaks  of  "  the  small  and 

1  Section  14 ;  c/.  Epistle  of  Barnabas  xv. ;  Gospel  of  Peter ^  v.  50  et  al. 


THE   CHRISTIAN   COMMUNITY  549 

the  great "  (xi.  18  ;  xix.  5)  in  the  community  of  believers. 
All  believers  are  kings  and  priests  unto  God.  They  are 
priests  because  they  offer  up  to  him  at  all  times  the  grate- 
ful incense  of  praise  and  prayer  (v.  8 ;  viii.  3),  and  they 
are  kings  because  they  are  unsubdued  by  hostile  powers 
and  are  destined  to  reign  with  Christ  (v.  10;  xx.  6). 
Over  suffering,  persecution,  and  death  God  will  make  his 
saints  victorious,  "  and  they  shall  reign  unto  the  ages  of 
the  ages"  (xxii.  5). 


CHAPTER   IV 
THE  ANTICHKISTIAN  WORLD-POWER 

It  was  a  fixed  conviction  in  the  apostolic  age  that 
some  special  manifestation  of  wickedness  would  precede 
Messiah's  coming.  In  the  Synoptics  we  read  of  false 
Christs  and  false  prophets  who  should  arise  and  deceive, 
if  possible,  the  very  elect  (Mt.  xxiv.  24).  The  Pauline 
Apocalypse  speaks  of  an  apostasy  and  of  a  man  of  sin 
who,  with  blasphemous  pretensions,  should  exalt  himself 
above  all  that  is  called  God  or  is  worshipped  (2  Thess. 
ii.  4).  We  have  seen  reasons  for  believing  that  this 
"  mystery  of  lawlessness  "  (v.  7)  was  regarded  as  a  Jewish 
antichristian  fanaticism  which,  it  was  expected,  would 
break  out  in  a  hostile  demonstration  against  the  Gospel. 
If  this  view  is  correct,  the  Roman  power  is  viewed  as  a 
restraint  upon  Jewish  hostility.  In  the  Epistles  of  John 
Antichrist  is  an  incipient  Gnosticism  which  denies  that 
Jesus  is  come  in  the  flesh  (I.  iv.  3;  II.  7).  In  the  Johan- 
nine  Apocalypse,  however,  this  antichristian  power  is  seen 
in  the  Roman  Empire.  The  hostility  of  Judaism  to 
Christianity  is,  indeed,  recognized,  but  this  representa- 
tion is  quite  overshadowed  by  the  description  of  ''the 
beast"  —  the  gigantic  might  of  the  Roman  world-empire. 
We  note  in  this  description  a  widely  different  attitude 
towards  the  existing  civil  power  from  that  expressed  by 
Paul  in  Rom.  xiii.  The  apostle  had  counselled  submis- 
sion to  the  constituted  authority  because  the  civil  govern- 
ment was  God's  minister  for  the  good  of  its  subjects  (v.  4). 
But  by  its  cruel  abuse  of  its  power  the  empire  had  ceased 
to  be  the  benefactor  and  had  become  the  enemy  of  man- 
kind. It  was  no  longer  viewed  as  the  representative  of 
divine  order  and  law  on  earth,  but  as  a  brutal  and  blas- 

660 


THE   ANTICHRISTIAN   WORLD-POWER  551 

phemous  monster  whom  God  should  slay  with  the  thunder- 
•  bolts  of  his  wrath. 

Throughout  the  earlier  chapters  of  the  Apocalypse  we 
meet  with  references  to  hostile  powers  which  we  may  gen- 
erically  designate  as  Antichrist.  Sometimes  these  powers 
are  of  Jewish,  sometimes  of  Roman,  origin.  At  length 
in  chapters  xii.,  xiii.,  and  xvii.  the  symbolism  derived 
from  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  employed  to  portray  these  evil 
forces  in  all  their  cruel  and  blasphemous  wickedness. 
Here,  as  before,  the  powers  in  question  are  partly  Jewish, 
though  chiefly  Roman.  However  various  may  liave  been 
the  literary  sources  of  our  present  Apocalypse,  all  its  parts 
have  this  characteristic  in  common  :  they  all  depict  and 
protest  against  some  signal  form  of  opposition  to  the 
Christian  faith.  Even  the  salutations  and  messages  to 
the  churches  contain  allusions  to  the  foes  of  Christ.  When 
he  comes  in  glory,  they  that  have  pierced  him  shall  see  him, 
and  "all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  shall  mourn  because  of 
him  "  (i.  7).  According  to  the  traditional  interpretation 
of  i.  9,  the  seer  himself  is  a  victim  of  persecution,  and 
has  been  banished  to  the  island  of  Patmos  because  he 
has  preached  the  word  of  God  and  testified  to  the  truth 
of  Christ.  1  Heresies  have  invaded  the  churches.  False 
apostles  have  seduced  believers  from  their  first  love  (ii. 
3,  4).  The  Christians  are  summoned  to  a  deadly  conflict 
with  evil  forces.  "  Overcome  "  is  the  watchword  of  the 
Christian  life.  Fidelity,  involving,  if  need  be,  submission 
to  suffering  and  death,  is  the  price  of  the  promised 
heavenly  blessedness.  An  hour  of  fearful  trial  is  com- 
ing upon  the  whole  world  ;  the  believer  must  be  steadfast 
and  watchful  "that  no  one  take  his  crown"  (iii.  11). 
Satan  has  taken  possession  of  Judaism  and  established 
within  it  his  throne  (ii.  13).  The  trial  and  imprisonment 
of  Christians  have  already  begun  (ii.  10,  13).      Idolatry 

1  So  Gebhardt,  Trench,  Simcox,  Bousset.  Two  other  interpretations  are 
possible  :  (1)  The  seer  was  in  Patmos  for  the  purpose  of  preaching  the 
word  of  God.  (2)  He  was  there  to  receive  the  revelation  of  God's  word 
in  vision.  So  Bleck,  Liicke,'  DeWette,  Diisterdieck,  Weiss.  I  regard  this 
interpretation  as  more  probably  correct. 


552       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

and  impurity  —  portrayed  under  the  names,  Nicolaitans, 
Balaamites,  and  Jezebel  (ii.  6,  14,  20)  —  are  exercising 
their  seductive  power  upon  the  harassed  and  oppressed 
Christian  communities. 

And  now  are  heard  the  mutterings  of  the  coming  storm 
of  judgment.  When  the  sixth  seal  —  one  of  the  dread 
mysteries  of  the  future  —  is  opened,  there  is  a  great  con- 
vulsion of  nature  ;  the  heavens  are  rolled  together  as  a 
scroll,  and  the  mighty  ones  of  earth  hide  themselves  in 
caves  and  rocks  to  shield  themselves  "from  the  face  of 
him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne  and  from  the  wrath  of  the 
Lamb  :  for  the  great  day  of  their  wrath  is  come,  and  who  is 
able  to  stand?"  (vi.  16,  17).  Deeper  roll  the  thunders  of 
judgment  as  the  last  mystery  is  unlocked  (ch.  viii.). 
Dread  portents  follow  one  another  in  quick  succession. 
The  golden  censer  which  had  held  the  prayers  of  the 
saints  is  now  filled  with  the  fire  of  judgment  and  cast 
upon  the  earth  (yv.  3-5).  The  prayers  of  God's  people 
are  heard  and  vengeance  descends  upon  their  enemies. 
Woe  after  woe,  plague  after  plague,  is  inflicted  upon  the 
wicked  world.  A  fiery  tempest  overwhelms  Antichrist  in 
utter  destruction  (ch.  ix.).  The  sacred  city  which  is  now 
"  spiritually  called  Sodom  and  Egypt "  (xi.  8)  is  doomed, 
and  as  it  disappears,  the  spiritual  theocracy,  the  heavenly 
city  of  God,  emerges,  and  triumphant  voices  are  heard  to 
cry :  "  The  kingdom  of  the  world  is  become  the  kingdom 
of  our  Lord,  and  of  his  Christ :  and  he  shall  reign  for  ever 
and  ever."  "We  give  thee  thanks,  O  Lord  God,  the 
Almighty,  which  art  and  which  wast ;  because  thou  hast 
taken  thy  great  power,  and  didst  reign"  (xi.  15,  17). 

The  evil  world-power  is  more  directly  described  in  the 
middle  chapters  of  the  book.  Without  attempting  to 
determine  the  meaning  of  the  details  in  the  description, 
we  may  point  out  the  chief  features  of  the  apocalyptic  pic- 
ture of  "  the  beast."  When  the  woman,  "  arrayed  with  the 
sun  "  (xii.  1),  —  symbol  of  the  Jewish  theocracy,  —  brings 
forth  her  son,  the  Messiah,  a  satanic  power,  pictured  as  a 
great  red  dragon,  appears  and  persecutes  the  woman  and 
her  seed.    We  hear  the  clash  of  opposing  forces,  but  "the 


THE   ANTICHRISTIAN   WORLD-POWER  553 

earth  helped  the  woman "  (xii.  16)  and  defeated  the 
wicked  purpose  of  the  "  accuser  of  the  brethren"  (y.  10). 
And  now  the  antichristian  power  appears  under  another 
symbol.  A  beast  comes  up  from  the  sea  (xiii.  1),  that 
is,  from  the  abyss,  the  haunt  of  the  demons  (xi.  7 ;  xvii. 
8;  ix.  1,  11).  His  horns,  heads,  and  diadems  represent 
the  manifold  powers  of  Rome  and  the  blasphemous  pre- 
tensions of  its  emperors.  The  description  is  modelled 
upon  Dan.  vii.  7  sq.  where  the  Grreco-Syrian  kingdom  is 
pictured  as  a  "beast,  terrible,  and  powerful,  and  strong 
exceedingly."  The  whole  world  does  homage  to  this 
monster.  His  power  seems  limitless  and  his  sway  un- 
bounded. He  revels  in  blasphemies  and  reeks  with  the 
blood  of  God's  peo^jle  (vv.  6,  7).  A  second  beast  now 
comes  up  from  the  land  (xiii.  11).  This  monster  aids  the 
first.  "  He  maketh  the  earth  and  them  that  dwell  therein 
to  worship  the  first  beast"  (xiii.  12).  We  seem  to  have 
here  a  symbol  of  false  prophecy  acting  in  alliance  with 
Roman  persecution.  The  political  power  of  Rome  and 
the  religious  fanaticism  of  Judaism  are  conceived  of  as 
cooperating  for  the  extermination  of  the  Church.  We 
have  seen  that  the  Antichrist  of  Paul  and  of  the  S3aiop- 
tics  was  Jewish.  We  seem  to  have  here  a  trace  of  the 
same  idea,  though  it  is  quite  overshadowed  by  the  repre- 
sentation of  Rome  as  the  chief  embodiment  of  satanic  hos- 
tility to  Christianity.  Antichrist  is  primarily  Rome,  and 
Jewish  hostility  is  a  secondary  and  subordinate  manifes- 
tation of  its  spirit.  "  The  combination  of  the  two  beasts 
brings  before  us  a  development  of  the  anticipations  formed 
of  Antichrist.  Originally  Antichrist  was  conceived,  not  as 
a  heathen  world-power,  but  as  a  false  Messiah.  Now  the 
work  of  Satan  was  seen  in  that  heathen  world-power. 
Unwilling  wholly  to  give  up  the  idea  of  the  false  Messiah 
and  his  deceit,  men  imagined  the  false  prophet,  at  least, 
accompanying  heathenism  as  its  servant  and  ally.  Accord- 
ingly, the  symbols,  as  we  find  them  in  this  prophecy,  rep- 
resent a  transition  stage  between  the  Jewish  Antichrist  and 
heathen  Antichristianity."  ^ 

1  Weizsacker,  Apostolic  Age,  II.  188  (orig.  p.  515). 


554      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

In  chapter  xvii.  the  Roman  power  is  most  vividly 
depicted.  It  is  represented  by  a  woman  seated  upon  the 
monster  which  has  been  already  described.  She  is  tricked 
out  in  meretricious  ornaments,  and  on  her  forehead  is  an 
inscription  which  designates  her  as  the  mystic  Babylon. 
She  is  "  drunken  with  the  blood  of  the  saints,  and  with 
the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus"  (^v.  6).  This  whole 
description  is,  to  a  considerable  extent,  a  repetition  of  that 
given  in  chapter  xiii.  and  is  probably  a  different  version 
of  the  same  apocalyptic  matter.  The  principal  differ- 
ences are,  that  in  chapter  xvii.  the  figure  of  the  beast  rep- 
resenting Rome  is  combined  with  that  of  the  "great 
harlot,"  instead  of  with  that  of  a  second  beast  from  the 
land,  and  that  the  seer  gives  an  interpretation  of  several 
features  of  the  symbolism.  The  beast  was  and  is  not, 
and  is  about  to  come  up  from  the  abyss  and  then  to  be 
destroyed  (^v.  8).  Here  is  evidently  a  reference  to  the 
death,  or  supposed  death,  of  some  Roman  emperor  whose 
return  to  earth,  either  in  person  or  in  spirit,  is  expected. 
Two  interpretations  of  the  "  seven  heads "  are  given. 
They  are  the  seven  hills  of  Rome  on  which  the  woman 
(the  city)  sits  (y.  9),  and  they  are  seven  kings  (em- 
perors) ;  five  have  died,  the  sixth  is  now  living,  and  the 
seventh  is  yet  to  come  (^;.  10).  In  the  present  form  of 
the  book  there  is  no  little  repetition,  vacillation,  and 
incongruity  in  the  use  of  the  symbols.  Now  the  beast 
represents  the  empire,  and  now  some  emperor.  The  sym- 
bolic woman,  in  turn,  represents  the  city.  The  interpre- 
tation of  the  seven  heads  of  the  beast  as  representing  the 
seven  hills  is  apparently  occasioned  by  the  use  of  the 
symbol  of  the  woman  for  the  city.  Here,  at  any  rate,  is 
an  incongruity  in  the  twofold  explanation  of  the  seven 
heads.  The  first  explanation  (^v.  9)  seems  less  natural 
than  the  second  (v.  10)  and  less  accordant  with  the  gen- 
eral use  of  the  symbols  employed.  The  ten  horns  are  ten 
kings,  confederates  of  the  emperor,  who  conspire  with  him 
to  "  war  against  the  Lamb  "  (^vv.  12-14),  but  who  also 
turn  upon  the  city  of  Rome  and  utterly  destroy  it  (^vv.  16, 
17).     This  is  probably  an  expression  of  the  current  expec- 


THE   ANTICHRISTIAN   WORLD-POWER  555 

tation  that  Asiatic  nations,  especially  the  Parthians,  were 
likely  to  march  against  the  city  and  to  overwhelm  it  with 
destruction.  Thus  does  God  use  the  allies  of  Antichrist 
to  destroy  the  eternal  city  ;  "  For  God  did  put  in  their 
hearts  to  do  his  mind  .  .  .  until  the  words  of  God  should 
be  accomplished"  (^v.  17). 

In  the  Apocalypse  is  found  embodied  an  idea  which 
was,  no  doubt,  a  product  of  popular  Jewish  Messianic 
expectations,  that  of  the  thousand  years'  reign  of  Christ 
and  the  saints  (xx.  1-10).^  In  precisely  what  relation  to 
the  great  world-conflict  this  episode  stands  is  not  made 
clear.  After  the  fall  of  the  mystic  Babylon  and  the  over- 
throw of  the  false  prophet  (xix.  20),  a  strong  angel  comes 
down  out  of  heaven  and  binds  Satan  for  a  thousand  years. 
During  this  period  the  martyrs  are  raised  from  the  dead 
and  reign  with  Christ.  This  is  the  first  resurrection 
(xx.  5).  At  the  end  of  the  millennium  Satan  again  mar- 
shals the  nations  to  war  against  the  saints,  whereupon  fire 
descends  from  heaven  and  overwhelms  them  in  utter  and 
final  destruction  (yv.  9,  10).  This  is  the  last  expiring 
effort  of  Antichrist,  after  which  appears  the  new  heaven 
and  the  new  earth  and  the  holy  city  descending  out  of 
heaven  from  God  (xxi.  1,  2).  Whether  this  period  is 
conceived  of  as  preceding  or  following  the  parousia  ; 
whether  the  reign  of  Christ  and  the  saints  is  on  earth 
or  in  heaven ;  and  whether  the  resurrection  is  literal  or 
spiritual,  are  questions  which  the  passage  leaves  unan- 
swered. If  it  is  regarded  as  subsequent  to  the  parousia, 
then  there  would  seem  to  be  another  final  coming  or  mani- 

1  "The  roots  (of  the  idea  of  a  millennial  reign  of  the  Messiah)  lie  in 
Judaism  and  in  its  sensuous  ideas  of  an  earthly  blossoming- time  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  ...  It  was  psychologically  inevitable  that  as  the  Old 
Testament  Messianic  idea  completed  and  realized  itself  in  Christianity, 
the  chiliastic  popular  belief  also  passed  over  with  it  into  the  Jewish- 
Christian  hope  for  the  future.  Hence  the  Revelation  of  John  teaches 
(xx.  4)  that,  after  the  coming  of  Christ,  his  steadfast  confessors  will  rise 
and  reign  with  him  a  thousand  years."  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Art.  Chilias- 
mus  in  the  Lexikon  fur  Theologie  und  Kirchenwesen.  The  millennial 
idea  in  late  Judaism  is  discussed  and  illustrated  by  Stanton,  The  Jewish 
and  the  Christian  Messiah,  pp.  310-324,  and  by  Schtirer,  Geschichte  des 
judiscJien  Volkes.    3te.  Aufl.    Bd.  II.  pp.  522  sq. 


556      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

festation  of  Christ  ushering  in  the  general  judgment  de- 
scribed in  verses  11-15.  Interpreters  have  attached  the 
most  various  meanings  to  the  "millennium."  Elaborate 
eschatological  programmes  have  been  based  upon  it  — 
due,  in  most  instances,  to  a  prosaic  reading  of  a  highly 
dramatic  book.  To  me  it  seems  likely  that  we  have  in 
the  passage  an  apocalyptic  fragment  which  represents  a 
survival  of  the  Jewish  belief  that  the  Messiah  would  es- 
tablish a  Kingdom  on  earth. 


CHAPTER  V 

CONFLICT  AND  VICTOEY 

The  Apocalypse,  notwithstanding  its  obscurities,  is  an 
important  aid  in  transporting  us  back  into  tlie  thought- 
Avorld  of  the  first  Christian  century.  In  its  light  we  trace 
the  footsteps  of  martyrs,  and  note  the  progress  and  results 
of  that  long  course  of  struggle,  oppression,  and  suffering 
which  mark  the  late  Jewish  and  the  early  Christian  periods. 
In  this  book  we  read  the  story  of  the  real  dolores  Messice. 
It  resounds  with  echoes  of  the  time  when  the  Jewish  nation 
was  decimated  by  captivities,  crushed  by  oppression,  and 
rent  by  revolutions.  The  imagery  of  the  book  and,  per- 
haps, parts  of  its  material  reflect  that  period  of  bitter 
struggle  when  the  Maccabees  fought  and  died  to  preserve 
the  last  spark  of  Jewish  national  life  from  being  tramped 
out  beneath  the  feet  of  their  Grseco-Syrian  oppressors. 
These  events  are  the  birth- throes  of  a  new  age.  The 
Messiah  was  born  of  mother  Israel  at  a  time  when  the 
skies  were  lurid  with  portents  of  coming  storms.  Satan 
was  ready  and  waiting  to  renew  his  persecuting  zeal  against 
the  mother  and  her  child  (ch.  xii.).  We  know  from  other 
sources  how  the  representative  of  Roman  political  power 
sought  the  young  child's  life  (Mt.  ii.  13),  and  how  Roman 
armies  desecrated  the  temple  with  their  idolatrous  rites 
and  laid  Jerusalem  in  the  dust.  The  angel  of  destruction 
marked  the  sanctuary  for  his  prey,  and  its  enemies  trod 
the  holy  city  under  foot.  Its  waters  were  turned  to  blood, 
and  dead  bodies  lined  the  streets  where  also  the  Lord  had 
been  crucified  (xi.  1-8).  Allusions  to  these  events  are 
woven  into  the  narrative,  perhaps  in  part  in  the  form 
in  which  they  were  found  depicted  in  a  current  fund  of 
apocalyptic   tradition,  without  any  intention  of   setting 

557 


558      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

forth  a  strict  chronological  order  of  events.  All  such  de- 
scriptions serve  but  to  heighten  the  color  of  that  picture 
of  the  great  impending  world-conflict  which  now  looms 
upon  the  seer's  horizon. 

In  their  general  features  our  author's  descriptions  of 
the  Roman  power  remind  us  of  those  fragments  of  apoca- 
lyptic tradition  which  we  have  already  met  with  in  the 
Synoptics.  The  desecration  and  overthrow  of  Jerusalem, 
the  great  tribulation,  the  appearance  of  false  Christs  and 
false  prophets,  the  occurrence  of  dread  portents  in  earth 
and  sky,  and  the  close  connection  of  all  these  events  with 
the  parousia  of  the  Lord,  are  features  which  the  two  have 
in  common.  In  both,  as  in  all  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  Lord's  advent  is  regarded  as  near  at  hand. 
The  panorama  of  events  described  in  the  Revelation  has 
already  begun  to  unfold  before  the  eye  of  the  seer,  and 
the  movement  will  be  more  and  more  rapid.  The  courses 
of  history  are  hastening  to  their  close.  The  vision  is  of 
things  which  must  shortly  come  to  pass  (i.  1,  3  ;  xxii. 
6,  7).  Events  follow  rapidly,  crisis  upon  crisis,  until  the 
great  final  consummation  when,  the  first  heaven  and  the 
first  earth  having  passed  away,  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
earth  emerge  (xxi.  1).  This  concej)tion  must  have  been 
vivid,  intense,  and  overmastering  in  the  mind  of  the  apos- 
tolic age.  It  was  a  view  of  human  history  which  must 
have  lent  deep  and  awful  significance  to  the  events  of 
every  hour.  Every  great  trial  which  befell  the  Church 
was  the  harbinger  of  speedy  deliverance  from  all  the  woes 
of  earth  ;  every  catastrophe  in  human  affairs  the  premo- 
nition of  coming  doom  upon  an  ungodly  world.  The 
veil  which  separated  the  eternal  world  from  this  was 
very  thin  and  near ;  all  eyes  were  watching  for  the  mo- 
ment when  it  should  be  rent  and  the  heavenly  glories 
should  burst  upon  the  earth,  revealing  blessing  and  honor 
for  those  who  had  kept  the  faith  in  patience,  and  destruc- 
tion for  the  cruel  and  corrupt,  the  enemies  of  God  and 
man.  The  apocalyptic  view  tended  to  color  the  whole 
field  of  history  with  the  dark  hues  of  the  present  evil 
age.     Its  tendency  was  inevitably  somewhat  pessimistic. 


CONFLICT  AND   VICTORY  559 

Of  course,  such  a  conception  of  the  future  had  its  dis- 
advantages.    It  put  men  under  severe  limitations  of  view 
respecting  the  prospect  of  the  world's  progress.     It  could 
not  see  the   future   course  of   history  as  a  long  process 
through  which  runs  the  "increasing  purpose"  of  God  — 
the   growing  together  of  wheat  and  tares,   the   gradual 
leavening  of  the  world  until  the  whole  is  leavened  (Mt. 
xiii.   33).      It  viewed  the  method  of  God  as  ictic  and 
sudden,  not   as   gradual   and   patient.      But    this  was  a 
limitation   incidental   to   the   age   and   inseparable   from 
its  modes  of  religious  thought.     The  Jewish  Messianic 
expectation  which  required  a  sign  still  made  itself  felt 
in  Christian  belief.      In  this  respect  our  Apocalypse  is 
the  most  intensely  Jewish  book  in  the  New  Testament. 
But,  after   all,  the   pessimism   of   the   book   is   rather 
apparent  than  real.     It  relates  only  to  the  conditions  of 
the  present  age,  and  not  to  the  general  course  and  out- 
come of   history  as  a  whole.      If   the   apocalyptic  view 
despairs  of  the  present,  it  is  also  able  to  look  beyond  the 
present.     If  evil  is  now  dominant,  its  power  is  still  tem- 
porary.    If  Antichrist  now  reigns,  yet  his  reign  will  be 
short.     The  forces  of  evil,  "  the  number  of  whom  is  as  the 
sand  of  the  sea  "  (xx.  8),  are  massing  themselves  for  the 
great  final  conflict,  but  the  issue  will   not  be  doubtful. 
Satan  shall  fall  like  lightning  from  heaven.     The  seer's 
philosophy  of  history,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  optimistic,  as 
Christian  thought  must  always  be.     Hard  experience  has, 
indeed,  rendered  impossible  the  Old  Testament  faith  that 
the  righteous  will  be  prosperous  and  happy.     But  a  new 
philosophy  of  life  has  been  sought  and  won.     It  is  derived 
from  the  unshaken  Christian  confidence  that,  however  dark 
the  present  hour,  God  is  still  mindful  of  his  own  and  will 
both  vindicate  himself   and  reward   his  faithful  people. 
Apocalyptic  writing  belongs  to  an  age  when  it  was  im- 
possible to  find  the  reward  of  virtue  in  the  present  world. 
It  must  be  sought  in  the  coming  age.      Hence  Christian 
hope  took  a  predominantly  eschatological  tone.     We  hear 
the  echoes  of  it  in  almost  every  New  Testament  book. 
Men  reminded  themselves  of  the  persecutions  which  the 


560       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

pious  in  preceding  ages  had  experienced,  and  sought  com- 
fort in  the  prospect  of  a  great  reward  in  heaven.  When 
the  divine  promises  seemed  to  fail,  and  hopes  of  happiness 
and  peace  turned  to  ashes,  they  directed  their  thoughts  to 
the  eternal  city,  not  made  with  hands,  and  saw  it  descend- 
ing from  God  out  of  heaven.  Apocalyptic  was  at  once 
the  product  and  the  cause  of  this  vision.  It  fostered  a 
form  of  faith  and  hope  without  which,  in  the  dark  and 
troublous  years  of  persecution,  the  Church  could  hardly 
have  survived. 

A  retrospective  glance  at  the  book  as  a  whole  may  help 
us  to  see  how  some  of  these  thoughts  and  hopes  come  to 
expression.  Despite  all  eddies  and  back  currents,  there 
is  a  general  onward  movement  in  the  stream  of  thought 
which  we  will  briefly  trace  as  illustrating  the  ideas  of 
conflict  and  victory.  Already  in  the  epistles  to  the 
churches  we  have  noted  traces  of  the  conditions  which 
have  just  been  described.  The  work  of  persecution  and 
of  corruption  has  begun,  with  the  inevitable  consequence 
that  some  have  lost  courage  and  made  shipwreck  of 
faith.  The  apocalypse  of  the  seals  portrays  the  power 
and  glory  of  God  and  shows  how  Christ,  ''  the  Lamb  in 
the  midst  of  God's  throne,"  solves  the  riddle  of  history 
and  secures  peace  and  blessing  for  his  faithful  disciples, 
while  judgment  is  poured  out  upon  his  enemies.  The 
description  of  the  seven  trumpets  is  a  picture  of  judg- 
ment. The  angel  pours  from  his  golden  censer,  upon 
the  altar  before  the  throne,  the  incense  of  the  Church's 
prayers,  and  then  fills  the  censer  with  the  fires  of  the 
divine  judgment.  The  trumpets  now  announce  the  suc- 
cessive woes  which  fall  upon  the  ungodly  world.  In  the 
visions  of  the  beasts  the  Roman  world-power  first  comes 
clearly  into  view.  Here  are  sketched  in  mysterious  sym- 
bols the  nation  of  Israel  giving  birth  to  the  Messiah,  and 
the  persecution  of  both  by  the  satanic  world-power  ;  false 
prophecy  lending  itself  to  serve  the  purposes  of  the  great 
beast  from  the  abyss,  and  the  succession  of  persecuting 
emperors.  These  descriptions  represent  the  stress  of  the 
battle  between  evil  and  good.     The  conflict  is  depicted  in 


CONFLICT   AND   VICTORY  561 

a  variety  of  forms.  It  is  a  battle  of  archangels  with  the 
powers  of  hell :  "  Michael  and  his  archangels  going  forth 
to  war  with  the  dragon ;  and  the  dragon  warred  and  his 
angels"  (xii.  7);  the  beast  making  war  with  the  saints 
(xiii.  7),  practising  deception,  doing  all  manner  of  lying 
wonders,  and  compelling  men  to  commit  sacrilege  (xiii. 
13-17).  This  conflict  is  followed  by  another  vision  of 
judgment  —  the  apocalypse  of  the  bowls.  The  mystic 
Babylon  is  overwhelmed  in  utter  ruin.  No  minstrel  or 
trumpeter  is  heard  any  more  in  Rome;  no  craftsman  plies 
his  trade  ;  no  mill  is  heard  grinding ;  no  lamp  shines ;  the 
noise  of  her  revelries  has  ceased  forever  (xviii.  22,  23). 
So  ends  the  world-conflict. 

And  then  bursts  forth  the  song  of  victory,  the  halle- 
lujah-chorus of  the  triumphant  and  rejoicing  Church.  The 
great  harlot  has  been  judged,  and  the  blood  of  God's 
servants  avenged  (xix.  2).  The  descriptions  of  victory 
and  salvation  which  fill  the  closing  chapters  are  the  most 
powerful  passages  in  the  book.  They  reflect  the  intensity 
of  the  faith  in  the  certain  triumph  of  God's  King- 
dom which  still  survived  in  spite  of  calamity  and  apos- 
tasy. The  blessedness  of  that  glorious  time  is  depicted  in 
a  variety  of  striking  images.  One  is  that  of  the  marriage- 
supper  of  Christ  and  his  Church.  The  bride  is  arrayed  in 
pure  linen,  — "the  righteous  acts  of  the  saints"  (xix.  8), — 
and  she  is  now  united  to  her  Lord  in  blessed  and  eternal 
fellowship.  Another  is  a  picture  of  Christ  in  the  stern 
character  of  judge.  He  is  clothed  with  symbols  of  power 
and  majesty;  heaven  resounds  with  the  march  of  his  armies, 
and  in  his  fury  he  tramples  down  his  enemies  as  the  grapes 
are  trodden  in  the  winepress  (xix.  15).  When  at  length 
Satan,  after  a  period  of  imprisonment,  goes  forth  for  his 
final  onslaught  upon  the  Church,  fire  from  heaven  destroys 
his  hosts  (xx.  9),  and  the  seer  looks  again  and,  behold,  the 
throne  of  God's  eternal  judgment  is  set.  Before  it  stand 
the  dead,  both  small  and  great,  and  the  books  are  opened 
and  the  destinies  of  men  declared  "  out  of  the  things  Avhich 
are  written  in  the  books,  according  to  their  works"  (xx. 
12).  And  now  appears  "the  holy  city,  new  Jerusalem, 
2o 


562       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOCALYPSE 

coming  down  out  of  heaven  from  God  "  (xxi.  2),  in  which 
there  is  no  more  sorrow,  pain,  or  death  (v.  4). 

The  description  of  this  heavenly  city  —  the  blessed  goal 
of  the  Christian's  longings  and  hopes — is  probably  the 
most  magnificent  passage  in  all  apocalyptic  literature.  It 
has  proved  its  power  in  the  Christian  life  of  all  subsequent 
times  by  the  inspiration  which  it  has  furnished  to  poetic 
thought,  and  by  the  comfort  which  it  has  ministered  to  the 
Christian  heart  in  hours  of  sorrow  and  bereavement.  Its 
tones  will  be  heard  at  the  graves  of  the  dead  to  the  remotest 
age  of  Christian  history.  The  light  of  the  city  was  like 
that  of  a  jasper  stone,  clear  as  crystal  (xxi.  11),  its  pro- 
portions perfect  (y.  16),  its  adornments  gold  and  jewels, 
its  walls  precious  stones,  and  its  streets  pure  gold,  trans- 
parent as  glass  (^vv,  18-21).  There  is  no  need  of  temple 
or  sacrifice,  since  God's  immediate  presence  is  manifest;  no 
need  of  sun  or  moon,  since  the  glory  of  God  lightens  the 
city,  and  the  lamp  thereof  is  the  Lamb  (v.  23).  Day  and 
night  its  gates  of  pearl  stand  open  and  all  nations  bring 
their  loving  tribute  into  it  (y.  25).  Through  it  flows  the 
pure  river  of  the  water  of  life  on  whose  banks  grows  the 
tree  of  life,  whose  leaves  dispense  healing  to  the  nations 
(xxii.  1,  2).  God's  servants  render  him  perpetual  service, 
and  the  Lord  God  gives  them  light  and  they  reign  with 
him  for  ever  and  ever  (^vv.  3-5). 

It  is  an  ideal  pictorially  described,  a  symbolic  picture  of 
the  better  day  seen  in  prophetic  vision  and  cherished  with 
persistent  hope  and  trust.  Precisely  how  Christian  faith 
would  have  defined  this  hope,  how  far  such  language  was 
literally  understood,  and  what  were  thought  to  be  the 
exact  nature  and  conditions  of  that  coming  age,  we  need 
not  inquire.  The  mind  of  that  time  was  aware  that  such 
descriptions  were  figurative  and  pictorial.  But,  none  the 
less,  did  these  pictures  represent  realities.  The  things 
which  were  not  seen  were  the  eternal  things,  and  faith 
was  a  conviction  of  the  invisible.  Our  Apocalypse,  despite 
its  obscurities,  stands  as  a  splendid  testimony  to  the  un- 
daunted confidence  of  a  persecuted  Church  that  goodness 
is  mightier  than  evil  and  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  will  at 


CONFLICT   AND   VICTORY  563 

length  prevail.  It  is  a  paean  born  of  the  faith  that, 
though  for  the  time  being,  "truth  is  on  the  scaffold"  and 
"  wrong  on  the  throne," 

"  Yet  that  scaffold  sways  the  future,  and,  behind  the  dim  unknown, 
Standeth  God  within  the  shadow,  keeping  watch  above  his  own."'i 

1  Lowell,  The  Present  Crisis. 


PART  VII 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JOHN 

CHAPTER   I 

INTRODUCTORY 

In  the  chapter  introductory  to  the  study  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  according  to  the  fourth  Gospel  I  have  commented 
upon  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  treating  the 
discourses  apart  from  the  other  portions  of  the  book,  and 
have  given  the  reasons  why,  in  the  present  work,  this 
method  of  separation  was  adopted.  In  this  closing  part 
of  the  volume,  therefore,  we  have  only  to  take  account  of 
the  Epistles  and  of  those  parts  of  the  Gospel  which  do  not 
purport  to  reproduce  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Of  these  the 
most  important  is  the  prologue.  While,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  Gospel  bears  the  impress  of  the  author's  mind  through- 
out, yet  evidence  is  not  wanting  that  he  distinguished  his 
recollections  of  his  Master's  teaching  from  his  own  reflec- 
tions, powerfully  as  the  latter  had  shaped  and  colored  the 
former.  In  the  prologue,  for  example,  he  gives  an  expo- 
sition of  what  Jesus  Christ  meant  to  him  in  terms  of  cur- 
rent speech  which  he  never  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus. 
While  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  distinguish  the  alleged 
words  of  Jesus  from  the  statements  of  the  evangelist,  and 
while  they  should  always  be  regarded  as  closely  related, 
still  the  Epistles  enable  us  to  separate,  for  convenience, 
from  the  subject-matter  of  the  discourses,  a  group  of  pas- 
sages in  which  we  may  believe  that  the  author  was  con- 
scious of  expressing  his  ideas  in  terms  peculiarly  his  own. 
Let  us  briefly  note  the  principal  characteristics  of  these 
Johannine  conceptions. 

664 


INTRODUCTORY  565 

In  the  author's  attitude  towards  the  Old  Testament,  we 
note,  on  the  one  hand,  the  evidences  of  his  own  Jewish 
life  and  training,  and,  on  the  other,  a  certain  feeling  of 
hostility  towards  actual  Judaism.  The  Old  Testament  is 
to  him  the  word  of  God  (x.  35)  ;  ^  to  be  an  "  Israelite  in- 
deed "  is  an  honorable  distinction  (i.  47) ;  the  Messianic 
salvation  issues  from  Israel  (iv.  22)  ;  "  the  law  was  given 
(eSo^?;)  by  Moses,"  —  he  introduced  or  inaugurated  the 
Old  Testament  system  of  organization  and  worship, — 
"  but  grace  and  truth  came  (iyevero)  by  Jesus  Christ "  — 
he  brought  with  him  into  the  world  the  revelation  of  God 
which  is  inseparable  from  his  own  person  (i.  17).  Thus, 
by  right  and  obligation,  the  Jewish  people  were  Messiah's 
own  possession  (ra  tSta)  ;  yet  they  that  were  his  own 
(ot  lSlol^  received  him  not  (i.  11).  The  apostle  does  not 
repudiate  his  Judaism,  but  like  Paul,  he  has  been  deeply 
grieved  and  wounded  by  his  nation's  rejection  of  their 
Messiah. 

Our  author  shows  a  capacity  for  wide  generalizations. 
He  has  a  few  great  watchwords  or  maxims  which  sum- 
marize for  him  all  divine  truths.  They  are  such  as : 
"God  is  light,"  "God  is  love,"  and  "In  him  was  life." 
He  carries  all  religious  truths  up  into  the  sublime  heights 
of  God's  eternal  and  infinite  life.  Revelation  and  re- 
demption are  regarded  as  expressions  of  God's  nature, 
and  all  temporal  things  are  viewed  under  the  aspect  of 
eternity.  Hence  revelation  is  coextensive  with  human 
history,  and  God's  gracious  work  of  enlightening  and  sav- 
ing men  has  been  going  on  from  the  beginning.  Christ 
did  not  first  come  into  the  world  when  he  was  born  in 
Bethlehem,  and  did  not  commence  his  saving  work  for 
men  in  Judea  and  Galilee.  He  was  the  heavenly  light 
w^hich  was  coming  into  the  world  and  lighting  every  man  ; 
he  was  the  light  of  men  universally.  What  Christ  has 
done  in  his  historic  manifestation  is  grounded  for  the 

1  Passages  from  the  fourth  Gospel  are  referred  to  by  chapter  and  verse 
only,  thus :  iv.  9.  Passages  from  the  Epistles  are  cited  thus :  I.  iii.  1 ; 
II.  3,  etc.  The  first  numeral  in  large  type  indicates  the  number  of  the 
Epistle  from  which  the  citation  is  made. 


566  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   JOHN 

apostle  in  what  he  essentially  and  eternally  is.  In  like 
manner,  what  God  does  it  is  according  to  his  nature  to 
do.  As  the  central  Sun  of  love  and  truth  he  pours  his 
boundless  and  universal  light  upon  the  whole  world  of 
souls.  The  character  of  God  determines  the  nature  and 
requirements  of  the  Christian  life.  All  duties  are  summed 
up  in  Godlikeness.  To  walk  in  the  light  as  God  is  in  the 
light  (I.  i.  7),  is  the  sum  of  Christian  virtue.  To  love  is 
to  be  born  of  God  and  to  know  God,  since  love  is  kinship 
to  God  (I.  iv.  7,  8). 

The  apostle  John  was  an  intuitionist  and  a  mystic. 
He  does  not  argue  ;  he  sees.  To  prove  Christianity  true 
is  quite  remote  from  his  purpose.  He  aims  rather  to  set 
forth  its  truths  in  their  inherent  power  and  beauty  in  the 
hope  that  others  will  see  and  receive  them.  He  assumes 
that  Christianity  carries  its  appeal  direct  to  the  heart. 
What  men  need  is  not  more  light,  but  an  eye.  If  the 
spiritual  nature  can  be  aroused  to  desire  love  and  purity, 
the  message  of  the  Gospel  will  find  lodgement  and  welcome. 
Hence,  to  the  apostle,  knowledge  was  not  the  result  of 
speculation  or  argument.  It  was  the  heart's  inner  certi- 
tude respecting  that  which  met  and  satisfied  its  longings 
and  its  hopes.  This  knowledge  was  won  in  experience, 
through  obedience,  receptiveness,  and  trust.  It  is  through 
such  knowledge  that  we  enter  into  the  conscious  posses- 
sion of  eternal  life  (xvii.  3).  John  had  embraced  Christ 
with  his  whole  nature,  and  his  faith  in  him  was  a  passion. 
He  had  seen  and  handled  liim,  but  it  was  not  a  mere 
external  touch.  About  his  sacred  person  had  twined  the 
tendrils  of  the  apostle's  spirit.  In  Christ  he  had  lost  and 
found  his  life,  and  on  his  inimitable  charms  and  heavenly 
glory  he  never  tires  of  dwelling  in  devout  contemplation. 

There  can  be  no  greater  mistake  than  to  regard  our 
author's  Christology  as  a  product  of  abstruse  speculation. 
Even  in  the  prologue  he  does  not  lose  sight  of  the  his- 
torical Christ.  It  is  the  Word  which  became  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  men  which  furnishes  his  starting-point  and 
remains  his  dominant  thought..  True,  he  traces  the  exist- 
ence of  the  light-bearing  Logos  back  into  eternity,  but 


INTRODUCTORY  567 

this  is  not  for  him  a  flight  of  sj^eculation,  since  he  is 
sure  that  Jesus  taught  his  own  preexistence  and  eternity. 
The  author's  view  of  Christ  is  eminently  historical  and 
practical.  His  Gospel  is  a  portrait  which  the  historical 
Christ  mirrored  ujDon  the  impressionable  spirit  of  his 
beloved  disciple.  It  is  the  product  of  a  mind  which  was 
under  the  captivating  S23ell  of  Jesus ;  and  when  all  due 
allowance  is  made  for  its  subjective  factors,  it  is  still  seen 
to  be  no  speculative  romance,  but  a  historical  picture  of 
an  all-mastering  personality.  On  this  account  his  mys- 
ticism never  becomes  extravagant  and  fanciful.  It  does 
not  desert  the  solid  ground  of  reality  and  experience.  It 
never  falls  into  indifference  to  history.  It  never  becomes 
a  mere  projection  of  the  writer's  own  moods  and  feelings, 
but  always  remains  true  to  the  idea  of  an  objective  reve- 
lation of  God.  He  does  not  lay  chief  stress  upon  the 
inner  light  of  man's  own  spirit,  but  upon  the  Light  from 
heaven,  which  shines  in  the  world's  darkness  and  illu- 
mines the  human  soul  with  its  radiance. 

It  is  quite  true,  however,  that  our  author's  mind  spirit- 
ualizes everything  which  it  touches.  He  sees  the  match- 
less Life  which  he  describes  not  so  much  on  its  outer  as 
on  its  inner  side.  His  method  is  to  seek  the  soul  of  truth 
in  all  the  events  whereby  God  is  revealed.  The  failure 
to  do  this  is  the  great  fault  of  the  Jewish  people,  who 
have  not  heard  the  voice  of  God  which  has  been  speaking 
in  their  own  history.  Hence  the  apostle's  interpretation 
of  religion  is  intensely  ethical  and  spiritual.  God  in  his 
revelation  has,  indeed,  shown  men  what  to  do,  but  that  is 
because  he  has  shown  them  what  they  are  and  what  he  is. 
God's  revelation  is  his  self-revelation.  All  the  duties  and 
demands  of  religion  strike  their  roots  back  into  the  nature 
of  God,  and  into  the  nature  of  man  as  a  son  of  God.  Hence 
religion  is,  above  all  things,  fellowship  with  God  and 
moral  likeness  to  him  in  heart  and  life.  John's  teaching 
is  at  the  farthest  possible  remove  from  the  popular  Jewish 
theory  of  piety  which  made  it  a  round  of  observances  and 
ceremonies.  His  elevated  spiritualism  has  little  concern 
for  the  outward  forms  of  religion.     True  worship  is  from 


568  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   JOHN 

the  heart,  and  may  be  offered  with  equal  advantage  any- 
where. The  apostle  has  nothing  to  say,  in  either  the 
Gospel  or  the  Epistles,  of  the  institutions  of  religion. 
The  sacraments,  even,  are  only  incidentally  alluded  to 
(e.g,  iii.  5).  We  need  not  attribute  this  silence  to  indif- 
ference to  the  forms  of  Christian  organization  and  ritual ; 
but  that  it  reveals,  on  the  part  of  the  apostle,  an  over- 
mastering sense  of  the  inwardness  of  the  Christian  life 
there  can  be  no  doubt. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Johannine  type  of  doctrine  is  not 
wanting  in  emphasis  upon  practical  duties.  The  require- 
ment that  the  Christian  should  lead  a  holy  life  is  nowhere 
more  strongly  urged  than  in  the  first  Epistle  of  John. 
Men  must  do  righteousness  and  keep  God's  command- 
ments if  they  will  lay  claim  to  the  Christian  name.  They 
must  walk  in  the  truth  and  submit  to  its  demands.  He 
who  professes  love  to  God  and  does  not  love  his  fellow- 
men  is  self-deceived.  Christians  must  love  and  serve  one 
another.  Christ's  own  life  was  the  pattern  of  service. 
He  took  a  towel  and  girded  himself  and  washed  the  dis- 
ciples' feet,  and  this  he  did  because  he  knew  that  he  came 
forth  from  God  and  was  going  again  to  God.  It  was  the 
consciousness  of  divinity  out  of  which  sprang  his  desire 
and  effort  to  perform  this  act  of  lowly  service.  Hence  to 
serve  thus  is  truly  Godlike.  As  Christ  does  what  he  sees 
the  Father  doing,  so  his  disciples  are  to  take  up  the  life  of 
sympathetic  and  helpful  love  among  men.  As  the  Father 
sent  the  Son  into  the  world  on  a  mission  of  mercy  to  the 
sins  and  sorrows  of  men,  so  does  he  send  his  disciples  into 
the  world  to  repeat  and  multiply  his  life  and  its  beneficent 
ministries.  No  !  our  author  does  not  lose  himself  in  vague 
raptures.  If,  as  his  legend  describes  him,  he  soars  like 
the  eagle  into  the  sun,  it  is  not  to  be  lost  to  earth,  but  to 
bring  down  something  of  heaven's  light  and  love  into  the 
struggles  and  sorrows  of  our  daily  life  and  common  expe- 
rience. 


?L 


f^.t 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  IDEA  OF  GOD 


The  Joliannine  concept  of  God  is  best  expressed  in 
these  terms:  God  is  love  (I.  iv.  8,  16);  God  is  light 
(I.  i.  5);  God  is  life  (I.  v.  20);  and  God  is  Father 
(I.  ii.  1 ;  iii.  1 ;  II.  3,  4).  Let  us  consider  each  of  these 
propositions  in  order. 

No  formal  definition  of  love  can  be  given,  nor  is  any 
required.  But  it  may  be  partially  described  by  enumer- 
ating some  of  its  qualities.  It  is  a  personal  relation,  a 
fellowship  of  life.  It  is  a  union  which  involves  mutual 
delight,  interest,  and  attachment.  Love  is  the  bond  of 
brotherhood  among  men.  All  the  closest  associations  and 
endearments  of  earth  have  their  basis  in  love.  In  selfish- 
ness there  is  only  isolation ;  in  love  alone  there  is  unity. 
Civilization  and  society  are  possible  only  on  the  basis  of 
love,  that  is,  of  reciprocal  interest,  sympathy,  and  service. 
When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  God  is  love,  a  part  of  the 
meaning  must  be  that  God  is  the  ground  of  all  the  higher 
fellowships  among  men  ;  that  humanity  is  one  because  it  is 
the  offspring  of  God  ;  that  human  society  itself  is  founded 
in  the  nature  of  God.  Love  in  man  is  a  reflection  of  the 
divine  nature  in  him.  "Love  is  of  God,  and  he  that 
loveth  is  begotten  of  God,  and  knoweth  God"  (I.  iv.  7). 
Love  is,  therefore,  a  self-giving,  self-imparting  quality.  As 
love,  God  is  the  great  giver.  "  God  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son"  (iii.  16).  To  love  is 
to  give,  to  serve,  to  bless,  to  impart  one's  self.  It  is  the 
great  love  of  the  Father  which  moved  him  to  make  sinful 
men  his  children  (I.  iii.  1).  As  love,  God  is  the  abso- 
lutely good  Being  whose  nature  it  is  to  communicate  him- 
self.    Man  is  the  offspring  of  the  divine  love,  and  finds 

569 


570  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   JOHN 

his  true  life  in  fellowship  with  God  and  in  the  imparta- 
tion  of  good  to  his  fellows.  By  loving  one  another  men 
show  that  God  abides  in  them  and  that  his  love  is  per- 
fected in  them  (I.  iv.  12). 

By  an  expressive  and  favorite  figure  of  John  God  is 
defined  as  light :  "  God  is  light,  and  in  him  is  no  darkness 
at  all"  (I.  i.  5).  This  truth  is  declared  to  contain  the 
essential  import  of  the  gospel  message  which  the  apostle 
had  heard  from  Christ.  What  aspect  of  the  divine  nature 
is  this  figure  especially  designed  to  emphasize  ?  Some  re- 
pl}^ :  The  purity  or  holiness  of  God  ;  others  :  His  meta- 
physical nature  ;  others :  His  revealed  character  ;  and 
still  others  :  His  perfect  goodness.  In  the  passage  just 
quoted  it  is  certain  that  light  is  set  in  contrast  to  the 
darkness  of  sin.  Light  is  a  symbol  for  the  pure  and  holy 
life  as  contrasted  with  walking  in  the  darkness  of  untruth- 
fulness and  unrighteousness.  But,  in  itself,  the  figure  of 
light  is  well  adapted  to  represent  moral  ideas  besides  that 
of  purity.  It  might  express  with  special  appropriateness 
and  force  the  conception  of  God's  self-revealing  and  self- 
imparting  goodness.  As  it  is  the  nature  of  light  to  shine, 
so  it  is  the  nature  of  God  to  give  and  bless.  This  idea  is, 
at  least,  suggested  by  the  opening  verses  of  the  first  Epis- 
tle which  leads  up  to  the  passage  under  review.  The 
apostle  shows  how  God  has  brought  the  eternal  life  to  the 
world  through  his  Son  (yv.  1-4),  and  then  declares  that 
the  import  of  this  bestowment  of  life  is  that  God  is  light. 
Of  course,  life  and  light  are  opposed  to  sin,  as  he  pro- 
ceeds to  show  ;  but  the  affirmation  :  God  is  light,  stands 
in  primary  connection  with  the  description  of  God's  gra- 
cious impartation  of  life  to  the  world  through  Christ. 
The  light  is  ''the  light  of  life"  (viii.  12)— the  light  of 
God's  self -revealing,  self-communicating  life.  With  this 
view  agrees  the  language  of  the  prologue  which  speaks 
of  the  life  which  was  in  the  Logos  and  which  was  perpet- 
ually shining  down  into  the  world's  darkness,  as  "the 
light  of  men"  (i.  4,  5). 

I  conclude,  then,  that  light  is  a  figurative  designation 
for   love.      But    both    terms   equally    include    purity   or 


THE   IDEA   OF   GOD  671 

holiness.  This  aspect  of  the  divine  nature  and  of  the 
Christian  life  is  quite  as  strongly  emphasized  in  connection 
with  what  is  said  about  love  as  it  is  in  connection  with 
the  use  of  the  figure  of  light.  The  love  of  God  is  per- 
fected in  him  who  keeps  God's  commandments  (I.  ii.  5)  : 
to  love  one's  brother  is  to  abide  in  the  light ;  to  hate  a 
brother  is  to  abide  in  darkness  (w.  9,  10).  To  love  is 
to  be  begotten  of  God  (I.  iv.  7),  and  he  that  is  begotten  of 
God  cannot  live  the  sinful  life  (I.  iii.  9).  Love  and  sin 
are  contraries.  Love  is  holy,  as  light  is  pure.  The 
import  of  both  terms  may  best  be  given  by  saying  that 
God  is  holy  love.  Both  are  terms  for  God's  absolute, 
self-imparting  goodness.  But  God's  goodness  is  always 
true  and  real  goodness  and  seeks  the  true  and  real  good  of 
its  objects,  and  this  good  includes  all  that  is  the  opposite 
of  evil.  But  holiness  or  separateness  from  sin  is  essen- 
tially a  negative  concept  and  is  quite  inadequate  as  a 
definition  of  the  divine  light  and  love,  which  are  positive. 
Love  is  more  than  holiness,  and  light  is  more  than  purity. 
They  are  terms  for  an  absolute  fulness,  a  positive  perfec- 
tion of  life.  God  is  the  absolutely  perfect  One,  and  the 
Christian  life  is,  ideally  considered,  Godlikeness.  It  is 
more  than  freedom  from  sin  ;  it  is  the  positive  realization 
of  a  life  like  that  of  God. 

The  Johannine  tradition  of  the  Lord's  words  represents 
Jesus  as  speaking  of  the  Father  as  the  absolutely  living 
One  (o  ^(ov  Trarrip,  vi.  57),  and,  therefore,  as  the  source  of 
all  spiritual  life.  The  Father  who  "has  life  in  himself" 
(v.  26)  sent  the  Son  into  the  world  to  communicate  the 
divine  life  to  men.  Quite  in  accord  with  these  expres- 
sions we  read  in  the  first  Epistle  :  "  We  know  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding, 
that  we  know  him  that  is  true  [God],  and  we  are  in  him 
that  is  true,  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  one  [God]  is 
the  true  God,  and  eternal  life"  (I.  v.  20).  By  this  last 
statement  is  meant  that  God  is  the  source  and  ground  of 
eternal  life  —  a  form  of  thought  common  in  John,  as  in 
the  words  :  "  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life  "  (xi.  25), 
that  is,  the  power  of  resurrection  and  the  bestower  of  life. 


572  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    JOHN 

Now  life  is  the  opposite  of  death,  and  death  is  defined  as 
lovelessness  :  "  We  know  that  we  have  passed  out  of  death 
into  life,  because  we  love  the  brethren.  He  that  loveth 
not,  abide th  in  death  "  (I.  iii.  14).  Thus  we  see  that  life, 
like  light,  is  regarded  as  an  ethical  conception.  Both  are 
terms  for  that  absolute  goodness,  that  perfect  blessedness 
and  disposition  to  bless,  which  the  apostle  searches  for 
words  to  describe.  They  are  synonyms  of  love,  express- 
ing certain  aspects  of  God's  perfection.  No  sharp  distinc- 
tion should  be  made  between  them.  Christ  called  himself 
both  life  and  light.  God  is  love,  light,  and  life  —  perfect, 
self-communicating  goodness,  the  source  of  all  purity, 
joy,  and  inspiration.  The  writer,  in  these  descriptions, 
is  simply  straining  and  bending  human  language  to  the 
utmost  in  order  to  make  it  convey  some  idea  of  the  tran- 
scendent perfection  of  God. 

The  apostle  also  employs  Jesus'  favorite  designation  for 
God — that  of  Father.  We  have  seen  that  in  both  the 
Synoptic  and  Johannine  tradition  of  our  Lord's  teaching 
God  is  regarded  as  the  Father  of  all  men.  ^  This  is  the 
view  which  is  taken  in  the  Epistles.  God  is  "  the  Father" 
without  definition  or  limitation  :  "  Behold  what  manner 
of  love  the  Father  hath  bestowed  upon  us,  that  we 
should  be  called  children  of  God"  (I.  iii.  1).  While  it 
is  true  that  in  the  Epistles,  as  in  the  Gospel,  the  father- 
hood of  God  is  most  frequently  applied  to  the  relation  of 
God  to  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  certain  that  there  are 
several  passages  in  the  former  in  which  the  application 
cannot  be  maintained  (^e.g.  ii.  1, 13,  15,  16  ;  II.  4 ;  cf,  Jn. 
iv.  23).  We  find  here  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  con- 
clusions already  reached  in  the  study  of  Jesus'  doctrine  of 
the  divine  fatherhood.  God  is  the  Father  of  all  men  ;  he 
is  the  source  of  their  being,  and  has  made  them  kindred  in 
nature  to  himself  and  capable  of  blessed  fellowship  with 
himself.  But,  on  their  part,  men  have  not  realized  that 
relation  and  therefore  do  not  in  fact  fulfil  their  ideal  as 
sons  of  God,  as  he  always  fulfils  his  idea  of  fatherhood. 
Hence  we  read  :    "  As  many  as  received  him,  to  them 

1  See  pp.  69-73 i  179-182. 


THE  IDEA   OF   GOD  573 

gave  lie  the  right  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to 
them  that  believe  on  his  (Christ's)  name"  (i.  12).  The 
sonship  of  men  to  God,  in  its  true,  ideal  meaning,  has 
been  forfeited  by  sin.  The  relation  denoted  by  it  must 
be  reconstituted  by  a  spiritual  renewal  or  transformation. 
The  apostle  John  gives  to  this  idea  a  special  emphasis  by 
employing  the  term  "children"  (jeKva)  instead  of  "sons" 
(vIol).  The  latter  word  (characteristic  of  Paul)  is  a  more 
legal,  the  former  a  more  personal,  term.  The  latter  sug- 
gests a  certain  privilege  or  status;  the  former  a  close 
fellowship  and  affectionate  intimacy. ^ 

Quite  in  keeping  with  the  teaching  which  we  have 
reviewed,  God  is  declared  to  be  invisible  and  spiritual 
in  his  nature.  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  " 
(i.  18).  Yet  he  dwells  in  those  who  are  kindred  in  dis- 
position to  himself.  The  life  of  love  brings  the  soul  into 
conscious  union  with  God.  "  If  we  love  one  another,  God 
abideth  in  us,  and  his  love  is  perfected  in  us  "  (I.  iv.  12). 
God  reveals  himself  to  the  inner  life ;  he  is  seen  by  the 
eye  of  the  heart.  "He  that  loveth,  knoweth  God" 
(I.  iv.  7).  But  there  is  also  a  sense  in  which  God  has 
visibly  revealed  himself  in  the  human  life  of  his  Son. 
His  grace  and  truth  have  come  to  concrete  expression 
in  Christ  (i.  17).  In  him  God  was,  as  we  may  say,  trans- 
lated into  terms  of  human  action  and  experience.  "  The 
only  begotten  Son  has  interpreted  (e^ejrjaaro)  the  Father" 
(i.  18).  In  him  the  voice  of  God  which  spoke  in  Jewish 
history  and  prophecy  (v.  37)  has  attained  an  unexampled 
clearness.  Through  him  the  eternal  life  which  was  with 
the  Father  has  been  clearly  manifested,  so  that  men  may 
enter  into  the  fellowship  and  power  of  it  (I.  i.  2,  3). 

In  contrast  to  idols  and  heathen  divinities  God  is  "  the 
true  God"  (o  a\7)dLvo<i  6e6<;,  I.  v.  20).  He  alone  corre- 
sponds to  a  worthy  idea  of  Deity.  Hence  all  God's  reve- 
lation is  a  revelation  of  divine  truth,  because  it  is  his 
self -disclosure.     Through  Christ  the  truths  of  God  —  the 

1  "Nacli  Paulus  bekommen  wie  um  Christi  willen  Kindesrecht,  nach 
Johannes  durcli  Christum  Kindeswesen."  Haupt,  Der  erste  Brief  des 
Johannes,  p.  133. 


574  THE  THEOLOGY   OF  JOHN 

realities  of  his  life  and  love — have  been  disclosed  to  men 
in  their  proper  meaning  and  power,  and  through  him  men 
may  know  the  truth  and  be  made  free  by  it  (viii.  32). 
Their  life  may  be  illumined,  enriched,  and  ennobled  by  a 
knowledge  of  God  as  he  truly  is,  through  living  contact 
and  renewing  fellowship  with  him.  Hence  the  truth  — 
life  as  seen  in  the  light  of  God  —  becomes  something 
intensely  real  and  practical.  The  truth  is  something  to 
be  done  (iii.  21 ;  i.  6).  It  is,  as  it  were,  an  atmosphere 
in  which  one  must  live.  To  walk  in  the  truth  (II.  4 ; 
III.  3)  is  to  live  the  life  of  fellowship  with  God  and  of 
likeness  to  him.  It  is  synonymous  with  "  walking  in  the 
light"  (I.  i.  7)  or  "abiding  in  the  light"  (I.  ii.  10)  which, 
in  turn,  is  explained  as  obedience  to  the  commandment,  at 
once  old  and  new,  that  men  should  love  one  another  (I.  ii. 
10;  iii.  11;   II.  5). 

God's  perfect  knowledge  of  what  is  in  the  human  heart 
is  asserted  in  the  passage  :  "  Hereby  shall  we  know  that 
we  are  of  the  truth,  and  shall  assure  our  heart  before  him, 
whereinsoever  our  heart  condemn  us  ;  because  God  is 
greater  than  our  heart  and  knoweth  all  things  "  (I.  iii. 
19,  20).  Interpreters  are  divided  in  opinion  respecting 
the  sense  in  which  God  is  said  to  be  "greater  than  our 
heart "  —  whether  greater  in  severity  or  greater  in 
leniency.  On  the  former  view  the  meaning  would  be 
that  since  God's  knowledge  of  our  sinfulness  is  greater 
than  ours,  he  must  condemn  us  much  more  severely  than 
we  condemn  ourselves.  On  the  latter  view  the  thought 
is  :  Those  who  truly  live  the  life  of  love  have  this  com- 
forting assurance,  that  God  will  freely  forgive  tlie  sins 
which  still  beset  them,  because  he  is  greater  in  compas- 
sion than  their  own  accusing  consciences  are.  I  con- 
fidently adopt  this  view  of  the  meaning.^  God  knows 
and  takes  full  account  of  the  sincere  intention,  the  right 
central  purpose  and  main  direction  of  life,  the  weakness  of 
human  nature  and  the  strength  of  men's  temptations,  and 
where  the  man  is  really  "  of  the  truth,"  that  is,  sincerely 
desiring  and  striving  to  conform  to  the  demands  of  the  life 

1  Cf.  The  Johannvne  Theology,  pp.  68-70. 


THE  IDEA  OF   GOD  575 

of  holy  love,  God  judges  his  faults  more  mercifully  than 
he  himself  does.  There  is,  however,  no  failure  in  the 
Johannine  Avritings  to  recognize  the  holy  displeasure  of 
God  against  sin  and  the  severity  of  his  condemnation  of 
it.  Although  the  word  "righteousness"  is  not  employed 
in  a  judicial  or  penal  sense  (see  I.  i.  9 ;  ii.  29),  the 
law  and  penalty  side  of  the  divine  nature  is  frequently 
emphasized.  We  have  already  seen  how  this  is  done  in 
connection  with  the  teaching,  that  although  the  direct 
object  of  Jesus'  coming  into  the  world  was  to  save  and 
not  to  judge  the  world,  yet  a  process  of  judgment  was 
inevitably  involved  in  his  work,  and  that  God's  condem- 
nation stands  against  those  who  love  darkness  rather  than 
light  (iii.  19).  The  necessary  reaction  of  God's  holy 
nature  against  sin  is  amply  brought  out  in  connection  with 
the  doctrine  of  love.  Since  love,  in  the  sense  in  which 
John  uses  the  word,  and  sin  are  incompatible  (I.  iii.  9),  it 
is  evident  that  God,  whose  nature  is  love,  must  repudiate 
and  condemn  sin.  Love  is  thus  seen  to  be  essentially 
righteous.  It  is  no  mere  benevolence  or  good  nature. 
Only  he  who  loves  can  abide  in  the  light  of  God  (I.  ii.  10). 
The  sinful  world  has  no  understanding  or  appreciation  of 
the  life  of  those  who  live  in  the  fellowship  of  the  divine 
love  (I.  iii.  1),  because  evil  is  as  contrary  to  love  as  dark- 
ness is  to  light.  Love  of  the  world,  the  supreme  choice  of 
the  pleasures  and  possessions  of  this  temporary  order,  is 
inconsistent  with  love  to  the  Father,  that  is,  with  moral 
likeness  to  God  (I.  ii.  15).  Everj^  one  who  has  been  born 
into  the  life  of  love  sets  his  hope  on  attaining  a  purity  like 
that  of  Christ.  "  Every  one  that  hath  this  hojoe  set  on 
him,  purifieth  himself,  even  as  he  is  pure"  (I.  iii.  3).  To 
"  do  righteousness  "  and  to  love  one's  brother  are  inseparable 
elements  of  the  life  which  is  begotten  of  God  (I.  ii.  29 ; 
iii.  10).  Sin  is  lovelessness,  and  "he  that  loveth  not 
abideth  in  death"  (I.  iii.  14).  The  possession  of  love  is 
eternal  life.  How  evident  it  is,  then,  that  love,  in  the 
thought  of  the  apostle,  includes  not  only  the  self-imparting 
impulse  in  God  but  also  his  self-assertion  as  against  sin — 
the  energy  of  his  holy  nature  in  repudiating  its  opposite. 


676  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   JOHN 

Love  includes  both  benevolence  and  righteousness.  The 
exercise  of  the  divine  love  is  regulated  by  the  demands 
and  standards  of  absolute  holiness.  Thus  love  is  seen  to 
be  the  most  adequate  definition  of  the  moral  nature  and 
the  best  compendium  of  the  Christian  idea  of  God. 

These  considerations  show  us  how  God  is  to  be  known. 
"  Every  one  that  loveth  knoweth  God,  for  God  is  love  " 
(I.  iv.  7,  8).  How  obvious  it  is  that  we  have  to  do  here 
with  something  more  than  an  intellectual  knowing.  It 
is  the  knowledge  which  is  possible  only  in  living  fellow- 
ship and  through  kinship  of  spirit.  It  is  the  knowledge 
which  comes  from  welcoming  the  divine  light  which 
shines  down  into  this  sinful  world  (i.  5)  and  from  walk- 
ing therein.  Such  a  knowledge  Christ  has  opened  to 
men.  He  has  shown  them  the  way  to  fellowship  with 
God.  "The  Son  of  God  hath  given  us  an  understand- 
ing, that  we  know  him  that  is  true"  (I.  v.  20),  and  such 
knowledge  of  God  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  realiz- 
ing the  eternal  life  (ih, ;  cf.  xvii.  20).  It  is  a  knowledge 
which  involves  the  whole  nature.  It  is  man's  entire  grasp 
of  God.  John's  doctrine  is  something  more  than  mysti- 
cism. It  involves  the  will  as  well  as  the  intellect  and  feel- 
ing. The  knowledge  of  God  is  attained  only  by  love,  and 
love  requires  the  doing  of  God's  commandments.  Such 
knowledge  is  attained  only  on  the  path  of  obedience.  The 
doctrine  is  practical.  He  knows  God  who  lives  a  Godlike 
life.  He  knows  Christ  who  walks  with  him  and  keeps 
his  commandments.  The  apostle's  mysticism  never  loses 
itself  in  mere  devout  ecstasies  or  subjective  phantasies. 
It  deals  with  men's  every-day  cares  and  labors,  not  to  de- 
grade the  knowledge  of  God  to  the  level  of  other  knowl- 
edge, but  to  exalt  all  religious  duty  by  showing  how  it 
leads  to  the  heights  of  Godlikeness  and  to  the  consequent 
realization  of  the  eternal  life. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  LOGOS 

The  Logos-idea  has  its  roots  in  the  Old  Testament  and  | 
in  post-canonical  Jewish  literature.    The  word  of  Jehovah 
is  the  fiat  of  his  almighty  will  : 

"  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made ; 
And  all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth." 

(Ps.  xxxiii.  6.) 

This  word  is  often  poetically  personified,  as  when  it  is 
said  that  God's  word  shall  accomplish  that  which  he  pleases 
(Is.  Iv.  10).  By  a  natural  extension  of  the  meaning  of 
the  term  the  word  of  God  easily  becomes  a  name  for 
the  revelation  or  message  of  Jehovah  to  men.  In  this 
sense  the  prophets  are  said  to  see  the  word  of  the  Lord 
(Is.  ii.  1).  More  distinctly  still  is  the  word  of  God  per- 
sonified in  passages  where  divine  attributes,  such  as  recti- 
tude (Ps.  xxxiii.  4)  and  power  (Jer.  xxiii.  29),  are 
ascribed  to  it. 

In  the  wisdom-books  this  personification  proceeds  a  step 
further.  There  wisdom  becomes  an  agent  of  God  in  the 
accomplishment  of  his  gracious  will  and  purpose.  In  Job 
wisdom  is  the  secret  of  life,  securely  hidden  from  the  com- 
mon observation  of  men.  It  is  "  that  path  which  no  bird 
of  prey  knoweth,  and  which  the  falcon's  eye  hath  not 
seen"  (xxviii.  7).  But  God  knows  where  it  dwells  and 
he  has  searched  it  out  and  declared  it  unto  men  : 

"  Behold,  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  that  is  wisdom ; 
And  to  depart  from  evil  is  understanding"  (v.  28). 

In  Proverbs  wisdom  is  God's  messenger  who  lifts  up  her 
voice  in  the  street  and  at  the  city  gates  and  bids  men 
walk  in  her  pure  and  pleasant  ways  ; 
2p  577 


578  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   JOHN 

"  Unto  you,  O  men,  I  call ; 
And  my  voice  is  unto  the  sons  of  men  "  (viii.  4). 

Before  the  world  was  made  Jehovali  formed  her  and 
established  her  from  everlasting  (yv.  22,  23).  Wisdom 
was  his  companion  when  he  settled  the  mountains,  estab- 
lished the  heavens,  and  gave  the  sea  its  bound : 

"  Then  I  was  by  him  as  a  master-workman : 
And  I  was  daily  his  delight, 
Rejoicing  always  before  him  ; 
Rejoicing  in  his  habitable  earth ; 
And  my  delight  was  with  the  sons  of  men  "  (vv.  30,  31). 

These  are  poetic  forms  of  thought  in  which  the  idea  of 
God's  active  energy,  his  self-revealing  nature  is  set  forth. 
They  are  ways  of  describing  the  living  God  who  does  not 
remain  shut  up  within  himself,  but  expresses  his  nature  in 
acts  of  power  and  in  works  of  benevolence  and  grace. 

In  the  apocryphal  wisdom-literature  we  may  trace  the 
development  of  the  Logos-idea  a  step  further.  In  Eccle- 
siasticus  the  personification  of  wisdom  found  in  Proverbs 
is  more  fully  elaborated.  She  is  the  first  creation  of  God, 
and  becomes  the  friend  of  all  who  fear  and  love  him 
(i.  4,  10).  She  issues  from  the  mouth  of  God  and  in- 
habits the  remote  places  of  earth  and  heaven.  But  in  a 
special  manner  she  dwells  in  Israel  and  has  established 
her  throne  in  Zion  (xxiv.  3-12).  She  makes  her  instruc- 
tion to  shine  as  the  morning,  and  sends  forth  her  light  afar 
off ;  she  pours  out  her  doctrine  for  the  benefit  of  the  most 
distant  generations  (xxiv.  32,  33).  In  the  Book  of  Wis- 
dom the  origin  and  nature  of  wisdom  are  most  vividly 
described.  She  is  one  to  be  loved  above  health  and  beauty 
and  to  be  chosen  instead  of  light  (vii.  10).  She  is  ''  the 
artificer  of  all  things,"  a  holy  and  subtle  spirit,  "more 
mobile  than  any  motion,"  and  penetrating  all  things  "  by 
reason  of  her  pureness"  (vii.  22,  24).  The  description 
continues  : 

"  For  she  is  a  breath  of  the  power  of  God,  and  a  pure 
effluence  from  the  glory  of  the  Almighty ;  therefore  no 
defiling  thing  falls  into  her  ;  for  she  is  a  reflection  of  the 
everlasting  light,  and  an  unspotted  mirror  of  the  efficiency 


THE   LOGOS  _  579 

of  God  and  image  of  his  goodness.  And  though  but  one, 
she  can  do  all  things  ;  and  though  remaining  in  herself, 
she  maketh  all  things  new  ;  and  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration entering  into  holy  souls,  she  equippeth  friends  of 
God  and  prophets.  For  God  loveth  none  but  him  that 
dwelleth  with  wisdom.  For  she  is  more  beautiful  than 
the  sun,  and  above  every  position  of  stars  ;  being  com- 
pared with  the  light,  she  is  found  superior"  (vii.  25-29). 

In  the  Targums  or  Aramaic  paraphrases  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  were  in  current  use  among  the  Jews  in 
the  apostolic  age,  a  similar  personification  of  the  word 
(Memra)  of  Jehovah  is  found.  The  word  of  God  was 
conceived  of  as  a  kind  of  intermediate  agent  between  the 
transcendent  Deity  and  the  world.  The  anthropomorphic 
acts  of  God,  especially,  were  ascribed  to  the  divine  Word. 
Jehovah  expresses  himself  and  executes  his  will  through 
the  Memra,  who  stands  in  the  popular  thought  in  the  place 
of  the  Almighty  himself.  This  popular  personification  of 
the  Word  is  closely  connected  with  that  of  the  Alexandrian 
Jewish  philosopher  Philo,  who  flourished  about  the  middle 
of  the  first  century  after  Christ. 

Philo  sought  to  bring  together  and  to  harmonize  the 
Old  Testament  and  Greek  philosophy.  His  system  was  a 
composite  of  the  most  diverse  elements.  He  shared  the 
ideas  current  in  late  Judaism  respecting  the  absolute  tran- 
scendence of  God  and  his  entire  separation  from  this  finite 
and  sensible  world.  Judaism  bridged  this  gulf  between 
the  world  and  God  by  its  doctrine  of  angels.  Philo  accom- 
plished the  same  object  by  resort  to  the  Platonic  theory 
of  ideas.  The  word  of  Old  Testament  Scripture  became 
for  him  the  sum  or  chief  one  of  the  ideas  or  powers  through 
which  God  mediated  his  communication  with  the  world. 
Sometimes  the  Logos  denotes  the  immanent  reason  of 
God  ;  sometimes  his  active,  self -revealing  energy  and  wis- 
dom. In  this  latter  sense  the  Word  is  the  agent  through 
whom  God  creates  and  administers  the  world.  He  is  the 
highest  angel,  the  first-born  Son  of  God,  the  second  God 
(o  Sevrepo^  ^eo?).  How  far  this  personification  is  poetical 
and  liow  far  real,  it  is  not  easy  to  say.     The  language  of 


580  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   JOHN 

Philo  on  the  subject  is  not  clear  or  self-consistent.  It  is 
probable,  however,  that  the  Logos  was  conceived  of  as  a 
person  distinct  from  God.  But  as  such  he  was  not  eternal. 
He  was  the  first  created  Son  of  God,  and  was  a  second 
j  God  only  in  a  figurative  sense. 

This  brief  sketch  of  the  development  of  the  Logos-doc- 
trine in  Judaism  will  serve  to  show  how  natural  it  was  for 
John  to  employ  the  term  "  Logos  "  in  application  to  Christ, 
and  will  point  the  way  to  its  right  explanation.  The 
apostle  seized  upon  a  word  which  had  long  been  in  use 
among  his  countrymen  as  a  name  for  the  principle  of  reve- 
lation in  God,  and  to  which  a  wider  meaning  had  been 
given  by  its  contact  with  Greek  speculation.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  suppose  that  John  borrowed  the  term  directly 
from  Philo.  He  took  it  rather  from  the  usage  to  which 
Philo's  speculations  had  done  so  much  to  give  currency. 
His  use  of  it  is  not  to  be  explained  without  reference  to 
the  influence  of  Philo,  who,  however,  had  simply  elabo- 
rated in  his  Logos-doctrine  an  Old  Testament  conception. 
The  view  that  John's  doctrine  has  its  basis  in  the  Old 
Testament  alone,  and  that  which  ascribes  it  directly  and 
solely  to  Philo,  are  both  extreme.  Remotely  it  rests  upon 
the  Old  Testament  conceptions  of  the  word  and  wisdom 
of  God;  more  directly  it  has  its  occasion  and  ground  in 
the  combination  of  those  ideas  with  Greek  thought  in  the 
Alexandrian  philosophy  of  religion.  We  shall  see,  how- 
ever, that  John's  doctrine  has  marked  characteristics  of 
its  own.  His  Logos-idea  differs  from  Philo's  more  than  it 
resembles  it.  Our  author  is  simply  using  for  his  purpose 
a  term  of  current  speech,  giving  to  it  a  new  application 
and  filling  it  with  a  new  content.  The  history  of  the 
term  "Logos"  does  not  fully  explain  its  meaning  in  John. 
He  employed  it  for  a  purpose  which  went  quite  beyond 
its  previous  uses.  He  put  his  own  stamp  upon  it,  and 
thereby  gave  it  a  new  significance  and  value. 

Turning  now  to  the  prologue  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  we 
find  that  the  apostle  employs  the  term  "Logos,"  or  "Word," 
to  denote  the  preexistent  Son  of  God,  who  became  incar- 
nate in  Jesus.     His  first  assertion  is  :  "  In  the  beginning 


THE  LOGOS  581 

(ev  apxxi)  was  the  Word"  (i.  1,  of.  v,  T).  It  is  hardly 
open  to  doubt  that  the  apostle  here  means  to  assert  the 
absolute  eternity  of  the  Logos.  Even  if  the  parallel  with 
Gen.  i.  1  be  insisted  on,  and  apxrj  be  taken  to  mean  the 
beginning  of  the  world,  it  would  still  be  affirmed  that 
the  Word  existed  when  the  world  was  created.  Christ 
is,  then,  pre-mundane.  Now  when  the  writer  in  the 
immediate  connection  speaks  of  that  which  came  into 
existence  by  creation,  he  uses  both  a  different  word  and  a 
different  tense  Qiravra  St  avrov  iyevero,  actX.  i.  3).  All 
things  came  into  existence  through  his  agency,  but  he  was 
in  the  beginning.  When  the  testimony  of  Christ  to  his 
preexistence,  which  the  Gospel  proceeds  to  record,  is  con- 
sidered, we  think  the  only  natural  conclusion  to  be  that 
the  author  here  means  to  affirm  the  absolute  eternity  of 
the  preexistent  Son  of  God.  The  next  statement  is  that  the 
Logos  was  in  relation  to  God  (tt/jo?  top  6e6v^  i.  1),  that 
is,  existed  in  a  living,  dynamic  fellowship  with  the  Father 
(o  ^€0?).  With  this  should  be  compared  the  phrase  : 
"Who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father"  (o  wv  eh  top  koXttov 
Tov  irarpo^^  i.  18).  The  prepositions  tt/jo?  and  et'?,  imj)ly- 
ing  motion  or  direction,  are  evidently  used  to  denote  a 
living  relation  of  the  Logos  to  God,  in  the  fulfilment  of 
which  the  life  of  the  Son  goes  out  toivards  the  Father. 

Having  asserted  the  eternity  of  the  Logos  and  his  active 
relation  to  the  Father,  the  author  adds :  "  And  the  Word 
was  Gocl  "  (^Kol  Oeo^  rjv  6  Xoyo^^  i.  1).  It  should  be  noted 
that  Oeo^  is  here  emphatically  prefixed  in  order  to  lay 
special  stress  upon  the  divine  nature  of  the  Logos.  Thus 
far  the  Logos  has  received  a  jfchreefold  characterization : 
he  preexisted  in  eternity ;  he  was  distinct  from  but  in 
living  relation  to  the  Father  (o  ^eo?)  ;  he  is  included 
within  the  category  of  Deity  (^eo?).  The  careful  dis- 
tinction which  the  author  makes  between  6  ^eo?  and  deo^ 
must  not  be  overlooked.  The  former  is  used  to  denote 
the  Father  specifically ;  the  latter  to  designate  the  divine 
nature  or  essence.  From  o  ^eo?  the  Logos  is  distinct ; 
within  ^€09  the  Son,  equally  with  the  Father,  is  included. 
The  author  thus  affirms  a  distinction  of  persons,   but  a 


^ 


582  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   JOHN 

community  of  essence,  between  the  Word  and  the  Father. 
This  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  words  is  maintained  by 
most  interpreters,  whatever  be  the  estimate  which  is  put 
upon  the  theological  value  of  the  ideas  themselves. ^ 

The  author's  next  statement  is  that  the  creation  of  the 
universe  was  mediated  through  the  agency  of  the  Logos. 
"All  things  came  into  being  by  means  of  him  (irdvra  hi 
avrov  iyevero^^  and  apart  from  him  (^wph  avTov)  no  single 
thing  came  into  existence"  (i.  3;  cf.  v.  10).  He  is  also 
the  giver  of  life  and  the  dispenser  of  light  to  men  (i.  4,  5). 
He  was  the  "  true  light "  who  came  into  the  world  and 
lighted  every  man  (i.  9).2     T.li©-I*QgQ,s^ is  a  source  of  light 

1  Beyschlag's  handling  of  the  subject  is  quite  in  accord  with  his  treat- 
ment of  the  Christology  of  the  New  Testament  in  general.  He  says  that 
no  one  will  contest  the  view  that  John  "imagined  the  preexistent  Christ 
as  a  person  distinct  from  God"  (11.424;  Bk.  V.  III.  ch.  ii.  §  5).  He 
seeks,  however,  to  deprive  this  "  theologoumenon  "  of  all  value  and  im- 
portance for  our  Christology  by  advancing  two  considerations.  He  inti- 
mates, first,  that  it  was  something  quite  far-fetched  and  foreign  for  the 
apostle.  It  was  simply  a  "help  taken  from  the  thought  of  the  time," 
something  which  he  borrowed  and  "did  not  overrate  the  value  of."  It 
was  taken  only  half  seriously  by  the  apostle  himself.  His  other  reason 
is  of  a  wholly  different  order.  Being  an  "imaginative  thinker,"  and 
entertaining  "defective  views  of  personality,"  the  apostle  could  easily 
confuse  a  "  hypostatized  principle  "  with  a  person  without  any  conscious- 
ness of  the  confusion.  First,  then,  the  idea  of  the  personal,  eternal  pre- 
existence  of  Christ  was  not  regarded  by  the  apostle  as  very  essential  in 
his  theology;  but,  second,  his  adoption  of  it  was  due  to  his  naive  confusion 
of  an  idea  with  a  person.  Certainly,  if  either  of  these  objections  to  the 
value  of  the  Logos-idea  is  valid,  the  other  is  quite  needless.  If  the  author 
was  only  semi-serious,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  show  that  his  imagination 
was  confused,  and  if  he  mistook  an  idea  for  a  person,  it  seems  excessive 
to  urge  that  he  did  not  mean  very  much  by  so  doing.  "We  have  here 
another  example  of  the  way  in  which  Beyschlag  provides  for  all  con- 
tingencies. If  one  argument  will  not  carry  the  point,  another  and  a 
wholly  different  one  is  ready. 

2  Three  constructions  are  possible  for  the  participle  "coming"  (Jpxo- 
fxevov)  in  this  passage  :  (1)  It  may  be  connected  with  "  man  "  {&vdpo}irov)^ 
as  in  A.V. :  "  Every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,"  that  is,  absolutely 
every  man.  This  has  been  the  more  common  view.  (2)  It  may  be  com- 
bined with  "was"  (Jjv)^  making  a  periphrastic  form:  "The  true  light, 
which  lighteth  every  man,  was  coming  into  the  world."  So  R.V.  marg. 
(3)  It  may  be  joined  with  "which"  (o),  whose  antecedent  is  "light" 
(0ws),  thus:  "The  true  light,  which  lighteth  every  man,  hy  coming  (or, 
on  coming)  into  the  world."  So,  apparently,  R.V.  I  prefer  this  third 
construction  as  expressing  the  most  forcible  and  appropriate  idea :  The 


THE   LOGOS  583 

and  life  to  mankind  universally.  Throughout  the  whole 
course  of  human  history  his  light  has  been  shining  down 
into  the  darkness  of  the  world's  ignorance  and  sin.  The 
eternal  Son  has  been  the  agent  of  God  in  revelation  and 
salvation  from  the  beginning. 

These  statements  of  the  nature  and  functions  of  the 
Logos  (i.  1-5)  are  followed  by  a  sketch  of  his  historical 
manifestation  in  Jesus  Christ  (vv.  6-18).  John  the  Bap- 
tist, the  last  Old  Testament  prophet,  announced  the  advent 
in  a  human  form  of  this  heavenly  bearer  of  light  and  life 
to  men  (yv.  6-8).  The  author  is  careful  to  exclude  the 
supposition  tliat  he  first  began  to  be  or  to  work  for  men 
when  he  thus  appeared  among  them  (^vv.  9, 10).  When  he 
thus  came  in  visible  form  he  offered  himself  first  to  his 
own  peculiar  possession  (ra  tSta),  the  Jewish  people ;  but 
although  they  were  his  own  (ot  cSlol),  they  received  him 
not  (y.  11).  They  were  his  own  because  he  had  been 
specially  operative  in  their  history,  which  had  been  the 
divinely  appointed  means  of  preparation  for  his  coming, 
and  because  he  had  appeared  as  a  member  of  the  Jewish 
nation.  Repudiated  by  his  own  people,  he  offered  his 
saving  benefits  to  all  who  would  receive  him;  all  who 
would  believe  on  him  as  the  true  Messiah  and  Saviour 
might  thereby  obtain  the  privilege  (i^ovaia)  of  becoming 
God's  children  (y.  12).  Their  acceptance  should  turn 
upon  no  terms  of  birth  or  lineage  but  solely  upon  an 
inward,  spiritual  transformation  (y.  13).  Thus  did  the 
Logos  assume  human  nature  and  dwell  among  men  (y.  14),^ 

light  of  the  Logos  comes  into  the  world  in  such  a  way  and  degree  as  to 
enlighten  every  individual  man  (irdpra  dudpioirov). 

1  Beyschlag,  N.  T.  TheoL  II.  425  (Bk.  V.  III.  ch.  ii.  §  5),  although  he 
has  just  admitted  that  John  "  imagined  the  preexistent  Christ  as  a  person 
distinct  from  God"  (p.  424),  maintains  that  we  cannot  attach  a  definite 
doctrinal  meaning  to  his  "  elastic  "  notion  of  the  Logos  because,  in  doing 
so,  we  should  have  to  make  6  Xoyos  <rap^  iyevero  mean  :  The  personal  Logos 
transformed  himself  into  sensuous  substance,  which  is  "simply  absurd." 
Logos  can  mean  an  idea,  a  principle,  an  impulse  in  God,  or  a  person, 
as  the  elasticity  of  the  thought  may  require,  but  iyevero  cannot  mean 
assumpsit  but  only  exstitU, /actus  est,  and  (rdp^  cannot  mean  human  nature, 
but  only  material  flesh.  We  have  already  noted  similar  examples  of  the 
combination  of  freedom  and  severity  in  Beyschlag' s  exegesis.    The  phrase 


584  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   JOHN 

manifesting  forth  the  glory  of  his  nature  and  the  fulness  of 
his  grace,  and  revealing  and  interpreting  to  men  the  truth 
of  the  invisible  God  (vv.  15-18). 

If  the  Logos -doctrine  of  John  be  compared  with  that  of 
Philo,  the  comparison  will  show  that  while  the  two  have 
points  of  contact,  they  are  radically  different  in  character 
and  rest  upon  different  presuppositions.  Both,  indeed,  in- 
troduce the  Logos  as  a  mediator  between  God  and  the  world ; 
but  with  Philo  this  mediation  is  part  of  a  metaphysical 
theory  of  the  universe,  while  with  John  it  is  a  method 
of  revelation  and  salvation  which  is  grounded  in  the  self- 
imparting  love  of  God.  For  Philo  the  world  is  inherently 
evil,  and  God  is  wholly  separate  from  it.  The  Logos  is 
a  means  of  resolving  the  resulting  dualism.  The  apostle 
takes  up  the  term  whose  use  had  become  common,  as  a 
convenient  means  of  emphasizing  the  truth  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  true  agent  of  God's  self -revelation  and  the 
true  Mediator  between  God  and  man.  The  motives  of 
his  doctrine  are  historical,  rather  than  speculative.  The 
starting-point  of  his  thought  concerning  "the  Word  of 
life"  is  the  fact  that  he  had  been  manifested  in  human 
form  :  "  That  which  was  from  the  beginning,  that  which 
we  have  heard,  that  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes, 
that  which  we  beheld,  and  our  hands  handled  concerning 
the  Word  of  life  "  (I.  i.  1).^    The  term  "  Logos  "  as  applied 

in  question  must  be  explained  in  the  light  of  the  Johannine  phrases :  "  to 
tabernacle  among  us  "  (i.  14)  and  "  to  come  in  the  flesh  "  (I.  iv.  2  ;  II.  7), 
whose  meaning  it  epitomizes,  as  denoting  the  consummation  of  the  myste- 
rious union  of  divinity  with  humanity  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  Cf. 
Clement,  2  Cor,  ix:  Siv  fikv  to  irpCJTov  wvev/xa  iyipero  adp^,  "though  he 
(Christ)  was  at  first  a  spirit,  he  became  flesh."  Holtzmann,  Hand- 
Comm.,  in  loco:  "Er  kam  im  Fleisch,  oder  wurde  Fle.isch.''''  If  the 
phrase  in  question  necessarily  meant  what  Beyschlag  says  it  nmst  mean 
(in  case  Logos  denotes  a  person),  it  would  not  only  be  "  simply  absurd" 
but  would  be  quite  contrary  to  everything  which  the  apostle  has  elsewhere 
written  of  the  nature  of  the  Logos  or  the  eternal  Son. 

1  Some  commentators,  indeed,  understand  "the  AVord  of  life "(6  X6705 
Trjs  foj^s)  in  this  passage  to  mean  :  the  message  of  life  or  the  gospel.  So 
DeWette  and  Westcott.  But  the  great  majority  regard  it  as  a  designation 
of  the  personal  Logos  or  eternal  Son.  So  Huther,  Haupt,  Weiss,  D wight, 
Briggs,  and  Plummer.  In  what  is  said  above  I  take  this  view  of  its 
meaning. 


THE  LOGOS  585 

to  Christ,  was  especially  adapted  to  express  both  his  agency 
in  creation  and  revelation  and  his  personal  preexistence 
and  essential  unity  with  the  Father.  / 

In  John  we  have  what  we  do  not  find  in-  Philo  — l^lear 
and  consistent  personification  of  the  Logosy  Philo's  con- 
ception of  the  Logos  is  wavering  and  unclear.  Now  the 
term  denotes  immanent  reason,  and  now  the  uttered  word ; 
noAv  he  seems  to  be  only  a  poetic  figure,  and  again  appears 
as  a  distinct  hypostasis.  Various  synonymous  titles  are 
used,  such  as  the  Wisdom  of  God,,  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Archangel,  and  the  Man  of  God.  'But  in  John  the  title 
has  one  clear  meaning.  It  is  a  name'  fac~.the-.eterjiaI^on 
^l-God,  Avho  came  into  the  world  in  the  historical  person, 
Jesus  Christ.  The  apostle's  doctrine  of  the  incarnation 
of  the  Logos  is  radically  opposed  to  the  dualistic  prin- 
ciples of  Philo*)  The  assertion :  6  Xoyo^;  aap^  iyivero 
(i.  14),  would  have  been  abhorrent  to  the  Jewish  phi- 
losopher. The  Logos  of  John  is  the  Christ  of  his  own 
experience  in  that  eternal  existence  and  activity  which 
the  apostle  knew  that  his  Master  had  claimed  for  himself. 

The  historical  interest  dominates  the  prologue  not  less 
than  the  rest  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  If  the  book  opens 
with  words  which  have  a  vague  and  abstract  sound,  the 
writer  at  once  translates  them  into  concrete  and  historical 
terms.  If  he  begins  with  eternity,  it  is  only  to  obtain  a 
starting-point  from  which  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ 
can  be  adequately  accounted  for.  The  Logos-idea  was 
fundamental  for  the  apostle.  He  grounded  the  whole 
gospel  in  the  essential  nature  of  God  and  the  eternal 
being  of  Christ.  But  this  was  because  the  historical 
facts  known  to  him  and  the  testimony  of  Christ  con- 
cerning himself  required  these  presuppositions,  not  be- 
cause he  had  taken  them  up  as  abstract  principles  in 
order  to  deduce  from  them  his  interpretation  of  Christ 
and  his  teaching.  The  Logos-doctrine  of  the  apostle  is 
a  reading  in  terms  of  current  philosophical  language  of 
that  great  conclusion  respecting  the  nature  of  Christ 
to  which  he  had  been  led  by  the  facts  of  his  teaching 
and  work. 


\ 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   WAY  OF  SALVATION 


Salvation  is  from  sin  unto  righteousness.  Sin  is 
described  by  our  author  .asjawlessness  (^avofxla^  I.  iii.  4), 
a  viohition  of  the  divine  order  and  a  state  of  disharmony 
with  it.  He  also  describes  it  as  moral  darkness  in  con- 
trast to  light,  which  is  the  symbol  of  goodness,  love,  and 
life.  The  sinful  man  "  walks  "  and  "  abides  in  darkness  " 
(I.  i.  6).  The  apostle  describes  sin,  now  as  an  act  and 
now  as  a  state.  Accordingly,  dfiaprdvetv  sometimes  means, 
to  commit  an  act  of  sin,  as  in  1.  i.  10  :  "If  we  say  that  we 
have  not  sinned,  we  make  him  a  liar,  and  his  word  is  not 
in  us."  Again,  the  word  means  to  sin  habitually,  to  lead 
a  sinful  life,  as  in  I.  iii.  9 :  "  Whosoever  is  begotten  of 
God  does  not  commit  sin  (^aixaprlav  ov  TroieT)^  because  his 
seed  abideth  in  him :  and  he  cannot  sin  (^afiapTaveiv)^ 
because  he  is  begotten  of  God."  The  phrase  iroielv  rr)v 
afxaprlav  regularly  means,  to  lead  an  habitually  sinful 
life.  It  is  important  to  bear  this  in  mind  for  the  right 
understanding  of  the  statement  that  the  Christian  "  does 
not"  and  "cannot  sin"  (I.  iii.  6,  9).  The  meaning  is 
that  the  Christian  life  and  sin  are,  in  principle,  contrary 
to  each  other,  and  that  the  true  disciple  of  Christ  cannot, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  lead  a  life  characteristically  sin- 
ful, although  he  still  commits  acts  of  sin  (I.  i.  9,  10). 
r  Apart  from  the  salvation  wrought  ito^jy^h,. Christ  the 
World  is  sinful.  "The  whole  world  lieth  in  the  evil  one" 
(I.  V.  19).  In  its  moral  blindness  it  did  not  apprehend 
the  light  of  the  divine  Logos  which  was  always  seeking 
to  penetrate  its  darkness  (i.  5).  In  the  world  the  impulses 
which  prevail  are  "  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  the  lust  of  the 
eyes,  and  the  vainglory  of  life"  (I.  ii.  16),     The  world 

586 


THE   WAY   OF    SALVATION  587 

is  the  sphere  in  which  Satan  rules.  Wicked  men  are 
"of  the  devil,"  "children  of  the  devil"  (I.  iii.  10),  that 
is,  kindred  in  their  disposition  and  actions  to  him  who 
"sinneth  from  the  beginning"  (I.  iii.  8).^  So  far  as  the 
sinful  world  assumes  the  attitude  of  direct  hostility  to 
Christ  and  his  saving  work,  it  is  designated  as  "  Anti-  _ 
Christ."  "The  spirit  of  Antichrist"  (I.  iv.  3)  is  found  I 
in  the  denial  of  the  messiahship  of  Jesus;  more  specifi- ( 
call}^,  in  the  denial  of  Jesus  Christ  as  coming  in  the  flesh  J 
(I.  ii.  22;  II.  7).  It  is  probable  that,  though  John  speaks 
of  "many  Antichrists"  as  being  already  in  the  world  (I.  ii. 
18),  he  looked  for  the  appearance  of  some  individual  who 
should  embody  in  a  preeminent  degree  the  spirit  of  anti- 
christian  denial  and  opposition.  Still,  the  essence  of  his 
doctrine,  when  all  the  expressions  of  it  are  compared,  is 
that  "  Antichrist "  denotes  a  principle,  tendency,  or  spirit 
in  which  many  men  share.  The  apostle  looked  for  no 
individual  "Antichrist,"  who  should  be  such  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  many  other  Antichrists,  or  who  should  wholly 
sum  up  in  himself  the  spirit  of  hostility  to  the  Messiah. ^ 
This  sinful  hostility  to  Christ  and  his  work  may  prove  to 
be  "sin  unto  death"  (I.  v.  16,  17) — the  utter  desertion 
and  repudiation  of  Christ,  to  which  the  speculations  of 
Gnosticism,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  fanaticism  of  Juda- 
ism, on  the  other,  were  in  danger  of  leading  some  of  the 
apostle's  readers.^ 

Now,  Jesus  Christ  "was  manifested  to  take  away  the 
sins  "  of  men  (I.  iii.  5),  and  to  "  destroy  the  works  of  the 
devil"  {v.  8).  This  saving  work  is  described  by  John  in 
various  terms.  Although  a  process  of  judgment  is  insep- 
arable from  the  Messiah's  mission,  yet  "  God  sent  not  the 
Son  into  the  world  to  judge  the  world  ;  but  that  the  world 
should  be  saved  through  him"  (iii.  17;  cf.  I.  iv.  14). 
He  saves  men  by  cleansing  them  from  sin.  If  we  walk  in 
the  light,  the  blood  of  Jesus  "  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin  " 

1  On  the  author's  doctrine  of  Satan,  see  The  Johannine  Theology, 
pp.  140-145. 

2  On  this  subject,  cf.  The  Johannine  Theology,  pp.  145-149. 

3  Cf.  The  Johannine  Theology,  pp.  149-155. 


588  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   JOHN 

(I.  i.  7).  Here  it  is  evidently  the  cleansing  of  the  Chris- 
tian from  the  sin  which  still  cleaves  to  him,  which  is 
referred  to.  The  saving  significance  of  Christ's  death  is 
certainly  implied  in  the  reference  to  the  "blood  of  Jesus." 
That  his  death  is  regarded  by  the  apostle  as  a  means  of 
taking  away  sin  is  also  evident  from  the  exclamation  of 
the  Baptist,  which  he  reports  :  "  Behold,  the  Lamb  of  God, 
which  taketh  away  (o  atpcov')  the  sin  of  the  world  !  "  (i.  29). 
The  use  of  aipeiv^  alike  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  writ- 
ings of  John,  favors  the  view  that  it  here  means  to  bear 
away,  rather  than  to  bear  as  a  sacrifice  (qf.  I.  iii.  5). 
Now,  whether  the  phrase  "  the  Lamb  of  God  "  be  an  allu- 
sion to  the  paschal  lamb,  or  a  reminiscence  of  Isaiah  liii.  7, 
or  a  reference  to  a  sacrificial  victim,  as  seems  more  proba- 
ble, the  idea  that  a  saving  significance  attaches  to  his 
sufferings  and  death  is  involved  in  it.  None  of  these 
phrases,  however,  are  definite  enough  to  yield  us  any  con- 
ception of  the  way  in  which  his  death  is  held  to  avail  for 
the  salvation  of  men. 

Christ  is  also  called  an  Advocate  with  or  before  the 
Father  (nrapaKXriTO^  7rpo<;  tov  irarepa,  I.  ii.  1).  These 
terms  describe  him  as  one  who  is  summoned  to  the  side  of 
the  Christian  to  aid  him  in  the  matter  of  deliverance  from 
his  sins  and  who  represents  him  in  relation  to  (tt/jo?)  the 
Father.  The  Christian  may  rest  assured  of  the  perfect 
sympathy  and  help  of  the  sinless  Saviour,  who  having 
himself  passed  through  a  career  of  moral  trial,  is  able  to 
deal  gently  with  the  erring  and  to  plead  their  cause  before 
God.  Of  course,  the  term  wapaKXriTo^  is  a  figure  draAvn 
from  human  relations,  and  does  not  carry  us  beyond  the 
general  expressions  already  noticed,  in  the  direction  of  a 
definite  doctrine.  In  I.  iii.  16  we  seem  to  find  a  more 
explicit  reference  to  salvation  through  Christ's  death : 
"Hereby  know  we  love,  because  he  laid  down  his  life 
on  our  behalf  "  (yirep  -qfxoyv)  ;  but  the  apostle  continues : 
"  and  we  ought  to  lay  down  our  lives  on  behalf  of  (yirip') 
the  brethren."  Undoubtedly  the  death  of  Christ  is  here 
said  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  men,  but  it  is  defined  in  no 
different  terms  from  those  which  are  also  used  to  express 


THE   WAY   OF   SALVATION  589 

the  way  in  which  one  man  may  give  his  life  for  the  benefit 
of  other  men.  None  of  the  passages  thus  far  reviewed 
yield  the  elements  of  any  theory  concerning  the  saving 
import  of  Christ's  death. 

In  but  two  passages  in  the  writings  under  review  do  we 
meet  with  any  of  the  technical  terms  by  which  the  New 
Testament  expresses  the  ideas  of  atonement,  reconciliation, 
or  propitiation.  These  passages  are  :  "  He  is  the  propitia- 
tion (IXacrixo'i')  for  our  sins,"  etc.  (I.  ii.  2);  and:  "Herein 
is  loveJ~noTthat  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and 
sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  (IXaaiio^^  for  our  sins  " 
(I.  iv.  10).  No  explanation  of  the  sense  in  which  Christ  is 
a  propitiation  is  given,  and  the  language  of  our  sources 
where  other  terms  are  used,  furnishes  us  but  little  aid  in 
determining  the  meaning  of  the  word  IXaaiio^.  Referring 
to  the  Septuagint  we  find  that  IXdaKeaOai  is  most  fre- 
quently used  to  translate  ^S3,  to  cover,  that  is,  atone  for, 
sin.  God  is  represented  as  graciously  covering  over  or 
expiating  the  sins  of  men ;  but  God  himself  is  not  said  to 
be  propitiated.  God  and  sinful  men  are  reconciled  upon 
terms  and  by  means  which  God  himself  appoints  and  pro- 
vides. Sacrifice  does  not  render  God  favorable  or  propi- 
tious in  the  sense  of  transforming  him  from  an  avenging 
into  a  merciful  God  or  of  making  him  disposed  to  forgive, 
as  if  he  had  not  been  so  before.  Expiation  rather  ex- 
presses the  terms  and  conditions  of  forgiveness  and  sets 
forth  the  truth  that  the  divine  forgiveness  is  conditioned 
upon  a  manifestation  of  the  inviolable  holiness  of  God  and 
an  assertion  of  the  ill  desert  of  sin.  It  thus  represents  the 
divine  self-consistency  in  forgiveness.  God  forgives  in 
ways  which  express  his  judgment  upon  sin.  Expiations 
are  a  testimony  to  the  hatefulness  of  sin  in  God's  sight 
and  are  expressions  of  his  just  displeasure  against  it. 
They  are  propitiations  in  the  sense  that  they  express  the 
conditions  on  which  his  grace  must  operate  in  the  salva- 
tion of  sinners.  We  are  to  see  some  such  conception  in 
the  word  /Xacr/to?  as  used  by  John.  Christ  fully  repre- 
sented and  embodied  in  his  work  for  men  all  the  truths 
which  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  had  partially  and  pic- 


590  THE  THEOLOGY   OF  JOHN 

torially  expressed.  He  had  perfectly  shown  what  God  is 
and  how  his  holy  love  secures  man's  salvation.  He  had 
paid  supreme  homage  to  the  righteousness  of  God  and  to 
his  just  condemnation  of  sin.  He  had  perfectly  under- 
stood the  relations  of  the  holy  God  to  sinful  men  and  the 
terms  on  which  men  may  find  peace  and  pardon.  Christ 
was  the  Mediator  who  brought  God  and  man  together. 
He  showed  men  the  way  in  which  God  becomes  favorable 
to  the  sinner,  namely,  by  making  sin  appear  hateful  and 
contrary  to  his  law  and  his  love,  in  the  very  process  of 
cancelling  it  and  cleansing  it  away.  The  apostle  probably 
carried  over  from  the  Old  Testament  some  such  idea  of 
the  import  of  sacrifice  as  I  have  mentioned.  Sacrifice 
expressed  the  sinfulness  of  sin,  as  well  as  man's  thankful 
devotion  to  God  ;  it  portrayed  his  righteousness  as  well  as 
his  grace.  1     All  this  Christ  has  done  yet  more  perfectly. 

Our  author  is  more  explicit  in  his  statements  of  the  way 
in  which  salvation  is  realized  in  the  believer  than  he  is  in 
his  teaching  concerning  the  method  of  God  in  providing 
for  man's  salvation  through  Christ.  He  is  fond  of  describ- 
ing the  realization  of  salvation  by  the  figure  of  a  divine 
begetting,  the  impartation  of  a  spiritual  life  from  God. 
"  Every  one  that  doeth  righteousness  hath  been  begotten 
of  him  "  (I.  ii.  29)  ;  "  Every  one  that  hath  been  begotten 
of  God  .  .  .  cannot  sin  (lead  the  sinful  life)  because  he  is 
begotten  of  God "  (I.  iii.  9).  The  phrase  <yevv7]6r)vai  etc 
Oeov  uniformly  means,  to  be  begotten  of  God.  Our  older 
English  version  rendered  it,  to  be  born,  in  all  cases  ex- 
cept two  (I.  V.  1,  18).  The  Revised  Version  has  cor- 
rected this  rendering  in  all  the  passages  except  i.  13. ^ 
The  first  Epistle  dwells  at  length  upon  the  nature  and 
results  of  this  divine  begetting.  It  means  a  new  life 
for  the  soul.  He  who  receives  this  spiritual  life  becomes 
a  child  of  God  and  is  transformed  into  an  increasing  like- 

1  See  W,  Robertson  Smith,  The  Beligion  of  the  Semites  (1894),  pp. 
393,  394,  416-419. 

2  In  Jesus'  conversation  witli  Nicodemus  (iii.  3-8),  however,  the  con- 
text shows  that  the  kindred  phrase  yewrjOTJvai  (ivwdev  means,  to  be  born 
from  above,  or  anew. 


THE  WAY   OF   SALVATION  691 

ness  to  God.  The  proofs  and  tests  of  his  having  received 
the  new  life  are  such  as  the  doing  of  righteousness  (I.  ii. 
29),  loving  the  brethren  (I.  iv.  7),  confessing  Jesus  as 
the  Christ  (I.  v.  1),  overcoming  the  world  (I.  v.  4),  and 
forsaking  the  life  of  sin  for  the  life  of  holiness  (I.  v.  18). 
The  import  of  all  these  various  expressions  is  essentially 
the  same.  He  who  has  become  a  child  of  God  by  the 
impartation  of  S23iritual  life  from  God  has  been  trans- 
formed into  likeness  to  God.  The  character  and  action 
of  God  are  now  the  ideals  of  his  character  and  action. 
His  life  becomes  a  life  of  holy  love  because  God  is  love. 
This  is  the  apostle's  favorite  way  of  putting  his  doctrine  : 
"  Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another  ;  for  love  is  of  God  ; 
and  every  one  that  loveth  hath  been  begotten  of  God,  and 
knoweth  God  "  (I.  iv.  7)  ;  "  Whosoever  loveth  him  that 
begat  (that  is,  God),  loveth  him  also  that  hath  been  be- 
gotten of  him"  (I.  V.  1).  Love  to  God,  the  source  of 
spiritual  life,  carries  with  it  love  to  those  whom  he  has 
begotten  —  all  the  children  of  his  fatherly  love. 

Closely  kindred  to  the  phrases  just  noticed  is  the  descrip- 
tion of  believers  as  children  of  God.  The  locus  classicus 
is  the  oft-quoted  passage  from  the  prologue  :  "  As  many 
as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  the  privilege  of  becoming 
children  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name  ; 
who  were  begotten,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the 
flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God"  (i.  12,  13). 
To  be  begotten  of  God  is  to  become  a  child  of  God,  and 
the  condition,  on  man's  part,  of  realizing  this  sonship  is 
faith.  Thus  we  find  here,  expressed  in  terms  peculiar 
to  the  apostle  John,  the  same  doctrine  which  meets  us 
everywhere  in  the  apostolic  writings,  that  salvation  has 
its  procuring  cause  in  the  gracious  love  of  God  and  that 
faith  in  the  condition  of  its  appropriation. ^  The  most 
noticeable  peculiarity  of  John's  language  at  this  point 
is  his  employment,  already  noted,  of  the  word  tckvov, 
instead  of  vl6<;.  By  means  of  that  word  he  is  able  to 
carry  out  more  perfectly  his  figure  of  a  divine  imparta- 

1  On  the  Johannine  conception  of  faith  see  my  Johannine  Theology, 
eh.  ix,  entitled,  The  Appropriation  of  Salvation. 


592  THE  THEOLOGY   OF  JOHK 

tion  of  life  ;  since  the  term  emphasizes,  not  so  much  the 
legal  position  of  a  son  as  the  intimate,  personal  relation, 
the  close  and  growing  fellowship  of  him  who  is  begotten 
of  God  with  his  spiritual  Father.  Childship  to  God  is 
a  relation  of  obedience  and  love  to  God,  and  necessarily 
involves  mutual  love  among  all  who  share  this  relation. 
The  child  of  God  must  love  his  fellow-believers  ;  not  to 
do  so  would  be  a  contradiction  of  the  very  nature  of  the 
Christian  life  (I.  iii.  10).  Other  marks  of  the  new  spirit- 
ual life  are:  abiding  in  Christ,  imitating  him,  and  partak- 
ing of  his  Spirit.  He  who  professes  to  abide  in  Christ 
"ought  also  to  walk  even  as  he  walked"  (I.  ii.  6).  The 
consciousness  of  fellowship  with  Christ  is  imparted  to  the 
believer  by  the  Spirit  (I.  iii.  6)  whose  bestowment  is 
likened  to  an  anointing  (^plafxa)^  consecrating  the  be- 
liever to  God's  service  (I.  ii.  27). 

We  have  in  this  teaching  a  view  of  salvation  which  is 
at  once  practical  and  profound.  The  duties  and  demands 
of  the  Christian  life  are  most  strongly  urged,  but  the 
motives  by  which  they  are  enforced  are  the  highest  pos- 
sible. Likeness  to  God  is  the  sum  of  them.  Men  are  to 
do  righteousness  and  to  walk  in  love,  because  it  is  God- 
like so  to  do.  Christ  has  perfectly  interpreted  God  to 
men,  and  revealed  and  vindicated  his  nature.  It  is  the 
duty  and  privilege  of  men  to  accept  this  interpretation 
and  to  live  and  work  in  the  light  and  joy  of  it.  "  God  is 
love,"  "  God  is  light,"  is  the  burden  of  this  gospel. 
The  divine  love  has  offered  itself  to  men  and  has  poured 
out  its  treasures  for  men's  free  possession  and  enjoyment. 
In  Christ  God  has  called  men  into  the  fellowship  of  his 
own  blessed  life  and  made  them  partakers  of  his  own 
perfection.  "Behold,  what  manner  of  love  the  Father 
hath  bestowed  upon  us,  that  we  should  be  called  children 
of  God  :  and  such  we  are  "  (I.  iii.  1). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I.    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
AS  A  WHOLE 

F.  C.  Baur,  Voiiesungen  iiber  neutestamentliche   Theologie.     Leipzig, 

1864. 
E.  Keuss,  History  of  Christian  Theology  in  the  Apostolic  Age.     2  vols. 
London,  1872.     The  original  in  French.    2  vols.    Strassburg  and 
Paris,  1864. 

B.  Weiss,  Biblical   Theology  of  the  Neio   Testament.     Third  edition. 

2  vols.     Edinburgh,    1882-83.      Original   German  in   the   fifth 

edition.     Berlin,  1888. 
W.   Beyschlag,    New    Testament    Theology.      2  vols.      Edinburgh, 

1895.     Original  in  German.     2  vols.     Halle,  1891-92.     2te  Aufl. 

1896. 
J.  Bovon,  Theologie  du  Nouveau  Testament.     2  vols.     Lausanne,  1893 

and  1894. 
H.  J.  HoLTZMANN,  Lehrhuch  der  neutestamentlichen  Theologie.     2  vols. 

Freiburg  i.  B.  and  Leipzig,  1896. 
W.  F.  Adeney,   The   Theology  of  the  New   Testament.     New  York, 

1894. 

The  following  treatises  on  this  Apostolic  Age  treat  at  considerable 
length  of  New  Testament  Theology :  — 

A.  Neander,  History  of  the  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian 
Church,  etc.  London  (Bohn  ed.),  1880,  and  New  York,  1869. 
Original  in  German.     5te  Aufl.  1862. 

G.  V.  Lechler,    The  Apostolic   and  the  Post- Apostolic  Age.      Edin- 

burgh, 1886.     Original  in  German.     Leipzig,  1885. 

C.  Weizsacker,  The  Apostolic  Age  of  the  Christian  Church.     Edin- 

burgh and  New  York,  1894.     Original  in   German.     Freiburg 

i.  B.,  1890. 
O.  Pfleiderer,  Das   Urchristentlium^  seine   Schriften  und  Lehren,  in 

geschichtlichem  Zusammenhang.     Berlin,  1887. 
A.  C.  McGiFFERT,  A   History  of  Christianity  in   the  Apostolic  Age. 

New  York  and  Edinburgh,  1897. 
2  Q  593 


594  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


n.    TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

H.  H.  Wendt,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus.  2  vols.  Edinburgh  and  New 
York,  1892.     The  original  in  German.     Gottingen,  1890. 

A.  B.  Bruce,  The  Kingdom  of  God ;  or  Christ's  Teaching  according  to 
the  Synoptical  Gospels.     Edinburgh  and  New  York,  1890. 

O.  Cone,  The  Gospel  and  its  Earliest  Interpretations,  etc.  New  York, 
1893. 

R.  F.  HoRTON,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus.  London  and  New  York, 
1896. 

J.  Moorhouse,  The  Teaching  of  Christ:  Its  Conditions,  Secret,  and 
Results.     London  and  New  York,  1891. 

S.  Mathews,  The  Social  Teaching  of  Jesus.     New  York,  1897. 

W.  Baldensperger,  Das  Selbstheivusstsein  Jesu,  u.s.iv.  2te  Aufl. 
Strassburg,  1892. 

E.  Schurer,  Die  Predigt  Jesu  Christi  in  ihrem  Verhdltniss  zum  Alien 
Testament  und  zum  Judenthum.     Darmstadt,  1882. 

W.  BoussET,  Jesu  Predigt  in  ihrem  Gegensatz  zum  Judenthum.  Got- 
tingen, 1892. 

A.  TiTius,  Jesu  Lehre  vom  Reiche  Goltes.     Freiburg,  1895. 

E.  Haupt,  Die  eschatologischen  Aussagen  Jesu  in  den  synoptischen 
Evangelien.     Berlin,  1895. 


in.    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  PAUL 

F.  C.  Baur,   Paul,    the   Apostle   of  Jesus    Christ.     2  vols.     London, 

1873-75.     Original  in  German.     Leipzig,  1866. 

L.  UsTERi,  Entivickelung  der  paulinischen  Lehrhegriffs,  u.s.w.  Zurich, 
1851. 

O.  Pfleiderer,  Paulinism.  Translation  from  the  first  edition. 
2  vols.  London,  1877.  The  original  German  in  the  second  edi- 
tion.    Leipzig,  1890. 

G.  B.  Stevens,  The  Pauline  Theology":  A  Study  of  the  Origin  and  Cor- 

relation of  the  Doctrinal   Teachings  of  the  Apostle  Paul.     Second 

edition.     New  York  and  London,  1897. 
A.  Sabatier,  The  Apostle  Paul:  A  Sketch  of  the  Development  of  his 

Doctrine.     New  York,  1891.    Original  in  French.    Third  edition. 

Paris,  1896. 
A.  B.  Bruce,  St.  PauVs  Conception  of  Christianity.     Edinburgh  and 

New  York,  1894. 
C.  HoLSTEN,  Das  Evangelium  des  Paulus.     Th.  II.     Paulinische  The- 

ologie.     Berlin,  1898. 
G.  Matheson,   The   Spiritual  Development  of  St.  Paul.     Edinburgh, 

1890. 
C.  C.  Everett,  The  Gospel  of  Paul.     Boston,  1893. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  595 

J.  F.  Clarke,   The  Ideas  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  etc.     Boston,  1884, 

O.  Cone,  Paul  the  Man,  the  Missionary,  and  the  Teacher.     New  York 

and  London,  1898. 
W.  P.  Dickson,  St.  PauVs  Use  of  the  Terms  Flesh  and  Spirit.     Glas- 
gow, 1883. 
E.  Menegoz,  Le  Pe'che  et  la  Redemption  d'apres  St.  Paul.    Paris,  1882. 

La  Predestination  dans  la  Theologie  Paulinienne.     Paris,  1884. 
J.  Gloel,  Der  Heilige    Geist   in   der   Heilsrerkiindigung  des  Paulus. 

Halle,  1888. 
H.  GuNKEL,  Die  Wirkungen  des  Heiligen  Geistes,  nach  der  populdren 

Auschauung  der  Apostolischen  Zeit  und  nach  der  Lehre  des  Apostels 

Paulus.     Gottingen,  1888. 
R.  A.  Lipsius,  T)ie  paulinische  Rectfertigungslelire.     Leipzig,  1853. 
E.  Grafe,  Die  paulinische  Lehre  vom  Gesetz.     Freiburg  and  Leipzig, 

1893. 
H.  LtJDEMANN,  Die  Anthropologie  des  Apostels  Paulus,  u.s.w.      Kiel, 

1872. 
L.  Ernesti,  Vom  Ursprung  der  Siinde  nach  paulinischen  Lehrgehalte, 

u.s.w.     Gottingen,  1862.     Die  Ethik  des  Apostels  Paulus,  u.s.w. 

Gottingen,  1880. 
R.  Schmidt,  Die  paidinische  Christologie,  u.s.w.     Gottingen,  1870. 

D.  SoMERViLLE,  St.  PauVs  Conception  of  Christ.     Edinburgh,  1897. 
O.  EvERLiNG,  Die  paulinische  Angelologie  und  Ddmonologie.     Gottin- 
gen, 1888. 

A.  Seeburg,  Die  Anhetung  des  "  Herrn"  bei  Paulus.     Riga,  1891. 
R.  Kabisch,  Die  Eschatologie  des  Paulus.     Gottingen,  1893. 

E.  H.  Gifford,   The  Incarnation:  A   Study  of  Phil.  ii.  5-11.     New 

York,  1897. 

T.  Simon,  Die  Psychologic  des  Apostels  Paulus.     Gottingen,  1897. 

E.  RiGGENBACH,  Die  Rechtfertigungslehre  des  Apostels  Paulus.  Stutt- 
gart, 1897. 

P.  Wernle,  Der  Christ  und  die  Siinde  bei  Paulus.   Freiburg,  i.  B.,  1897. 

E.  Teichmann,  Die  paulinischen  Vorstellungen  von  Auferstehung  und 
Gericht  und  ihre  Beziehung  zur  jUdischen  Apoccdyptik.  Freiburg 
i.  B.  and  Leipzig,  1896. 

J.  Dalmer,  Die  Eriodhlung  Israels  nach  der  Heilsverkiindigung  des 
Apostels  Paulus.     Giithersloh,  1894. 

K.  MtJLLER,  Die  gottliche  Zuvorersehung  und  Erzdhlung,  u.s.w.  Halle, 
18W1. 

IV.    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JOHN 

K.  Frommann,  Der  johanneische  Lehrbegriff,  u.s.w.     Leipzig,  1839. 
K.  R.  KosTLiN,   Der  Lehrbegriff  des    Evangeliums    und     der  Briefe 

Johannes,  u.s.w.     Berlin,  1843. 
A.  HiLGENFELD,  Das  EvaugeUum  und  die  Briefe  Johannes  nach  ihrem 

Lehrbegriffe  dargestellt.     Braunschweig,  1849. 


596  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

B.  Weiss,  Der  johanneische  Lehrhegriff  in  seinen   Grundzugen  unter- 

sucht.     Berlin,  1862. 
G.  B.  Stevens,   The  Johannine  Theology:   A  Study  of  the  Doctrinal 

Contents   of  the    Gospel   and  Epistles  of  the  Apostle  John,     Kew 

York  and  London,  1895. 
O.    HoLTZMANN,    Das    Johannes-evangelium    untersucht    und    erkldrt. 

Darmstadt,  1887. 
H.  KoHLER,  Von   der    Welt  zum  Himmelreich   oder   die  johanneische 

Darstellung    des     Werkes    Jesu    Christi    synoptisch    gepriift    und 

ergdnzt.     Halle,  1892. 


V.    OTHER  TYPES  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  DOCTRINE, 
AND   SPECIAL   TOPICS 

H.  Messner,  Die  Lehre  der  Apostel.     Leipzig,  1856. 

W.  G.  Schmidt,  Der  Lehrgehalt  des  Jacobusbriefs.     Leipzig,  1869. 

B.  Weiss,  Der  pet7i7iische  Lehrbegi'if^.     Berlin,  1855. 

E.  Riehm,  Der  Lehrbegriff  des  Hebraerbriefs.     Basel,  1867. 

E.  Menegoz,  La  Theologie  de  VEpitre  aux  Hebreux.     Paris,  1894. 

F.  Rendall,   The   Theology  of  the  Hebrew   Christians  (including  an 

Essay  on  the  Theology  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews).     London, 
1886. 
H.  Gebhardt,   The  Doctrine  of  the  Apocalypse.     Edinburgh,    1878. 
Original  in  German.     Gotha,  1873. 

C.  A.  Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels.  New  York,  1894. 
C.  A.  Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles.  New  York,  1895. 
J.  Laidlaw,  The  Bible  Doctrine  of  Man.     Edinburgh,  1895. 

F.  J.  A.  HoRT,  The  Christian  Ecclesia.  London  and  New  York, 
1897. 

W.  Baldensperger,  Der  Prolog  des  vierten  Evangeliums.  Freiburg 
i.  B.,  1898. 

S.  D.  F.  Salmond,  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Immortality.  Edin- 
burgh, 1895. 

C.  Clemen,  Die  christliche  Lehre  von  der  Siinde.  Th.  I.  Die  biblische 
Lehre.     Gottingen,  1897. 

W.  P.  Du  BosE,  The  Soteriology  of  the  New  Testament.  New  York, 
1892. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Abbot,  E.,  399. 

Abbott,  E.  A.,  255. 

Abbott,  T.  K.,  359,  395. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  critical  views  of, 
247  sq. ;  discourses  of,  258  sq. 

Adam,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  349  sq. ;  the 
"  second  "  or  "last  Adam,"  392  sq. 

Adeney,  W.  F.,  513,  595. 

Alford,  H.,  84,  306,  307,  484. 

Allen,  A.  V.  G.,  on  the  ministry  in  the 
apostolic  Church,  459. 

Andrews,  S.  J.,  391. 

Angels,  Jesus'  reference  to,  80  sq.; 
mediation  of,  365,  491. 

Antichrist,  in  the  Apocalypse,  550  sq., 
559  sq.;  in  John's  epistles,  588. 

Apocalypse,  the  Johannine,  critical 
questions  concerning,  523  sq.;  the 
partition  hypothesis,  527  sq.;  out- 
line analysis  of,  529  sq. ;  on  the  per- 
son of  Christ,  536  sq. ;  on  the  Church, 
543  sq.;  on  faith  and  works,  546  sq. ; 
its  doctrine  of  Antichrist,  550  sq.;  on 
the  "millennium,"  555;  conflict  of 
good  and  evil,  depicted  in,  557  sq. ; 
the  resulting  victory,  561  sq. 

Apocalypse,  the  Pauline,  472. 

Apocalyptic  element  in  the  Gospels, 
154  sq. 

Apollos,  482. 

Apostasy,  in  Hebrews,  521  sq. 

Ascensio  Mosis,  314. 

Asceticism,  Jesus'  freedom  from,  115; 
Paul's  attitude  towards,  347  sq.,  449 

Augustine,  307. 

Baldensperger,  W.,  39,  594. 

Baptism,  Paul's  view  of,  358;  461  sq. 

Barnabas,  482. 

Bartlett,  S.  C,  .305. 

Bartlett,  V.,  on  "  the  Son  of  man,"  48. 

Barton,  G.  A.,  528. 

Baur,  F.  C,  on  the  meaning  of  "  ran- 
som," 127,  307;  on  "the  spirits  in 
prison,"  308;  325,  377,  401,  593,  594. 


Beast,  in  the  Apocalypse,  553  sq. 

Beatitudes,  the,  33  sq. 

Beet,  J.  A.,  398. 

Bengel,  114;  on  Rom.  v.  12,  357;  500. 

Beyschlag,  W.,  27,  28,  39,  51 ;  on  the 
meaning  of  "Son  of  man,"  52;  53; 
on  the  title  "Son  of  God,"  61,  62; 
on  the  fatherhood  of  God,  72,  81; 
122,  124;  on  the  idea  of  ransom,  126 
sq.;  157,166,  174,  176,  185,  199;  on 
Jesus'  sonship  to  God,  201 ;  on  his 
preexistence,  209  sq. ;  225,  251,  253, 
254,  266,  270 ;  on  the  death  of  Christ, 
271 ;  288,  290,  297,  298 ;  on  Christ's 
death,  302;  307,  340,  377,  378,  391; 
on  Christ's  preexistence,  393,  395, 
396,  401,  444,  445;  on  Paul's  doc- 
trine of  marriage,  449;  486;  on  the 
Christology  of  Hebrews,  503,  504, 
526,  527,  528 ;  on  the  Christology  of 
the  Apocalypse,  539,  540,  541 ;  on 
John's  Christology,  iu  the  prologue, 
582-584,  593. 

Binding  and  loosing,  142  sq. 

Birth,  or  Begetting,  from  God,  590, 
591. 

Bleek,  F.,  484,  486,  495,  500,  526,  539, 
540,  551. 

Book  of  Wisdom,  432. 

Bousset,  W.,  17,  528,  539,  540,  551,  594. 

Bovon,  J.,  108,  174,  176;  on  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Holy  Spirit,  216,  247, 
298,  302,  305,  308,  340,  398,  527,  593. 

Briggs,  C.  A.,  28,  34,  49,  58;  on  the 
Lord's  supper,  125;  on  the  Church, 
138 ;  on  the  apocalyptic  passages  in 
the  Synoptics,  157;  on  "the  bread 
of  life,"  224,  299,  395;  on  Everett's 
theory  of  Christ's  death,  405,  406; 
527;  on  the  Apocalypse,  528,  529, 
533 ;  539,  540,  584,  596. 

Broadus,  J.  A.,  83. 

Bruce,  A.  B.,  28,  35;  on  the  phrase 
"Son  of  man,"  42,  86,  132,  164;  on 
Paul's  doctrine  of  the  election  of 


597 


598 


GENERAL   INDEX 


Israel,  381,  388;  398;  on  Everett's 
theory  of  Christ's  death,  406;  on 
Paul's  doctrine  of  justification,  428 ; 
432, 486, 489 ;  on  the  words ' '  shadow ' ' 
and  "  image  "  in  Hebrews,  496 ;  500 ; 
on  the  eternal  priesthood  of  Christ, 
508,  594. 
Buttmaun,  A.,  306. 

Calvin,  J.,  on  foreordination,  386. 
Celibacy,  Paul's  view  of,  449. 
Charles,  R.  H.,  on  the  title  "  Son  of 

man,"  43  sq. ;  48  sq.;  313,  316. 
Childship,  to  God,  in  John,  591,  592. 

See  Sonship. 
Church,  doctrine  of,  in  the  Synoptic 

Gospels,  135  sq. ;  Paul's  doctrine  of, 

458  sq.;   the  unity  of,  464  sq.;    in 

Apocalypse,  543  sq. 
Clarke,  J.  F.,  597. 
Clemen,  C,  596. 

"  Coming  "  of  Christ,  in  John,  234  sq. 
Community    of    goods    in    the    early 

Church,  263  sq. 
Cone,  O.,  272 ;  on  Rom.  ix.  5,  398 ;  432, 

594,  595. 
"  Conscience,  cases  of,"  Paul's  treat- 
ment of,  454  sq. 
Cook,  F.  C,  307. 
Covenant,  Old  and  New,  in  Hebrews, 

490  sq. ;   play  on  word,  in  Hebrews, 

511. 
Criticism  of  the  Gospels,  6  sq. 

Dalman,  G.,  15. 

Dalmer,  J.,  595. 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  492. 

Death,  of  Christ,  in  early  apostolic 

teaching,  268  sq. ;  in  Paul's  theology, 

403  sq. ;  Paul's  view  of,  351  sq.,  474 ; 

ethical,  to  sin,  in  Paul,  423  sq. 
Delitzsch,  F.,  500. 
De  Wette,  W.  M.  L.,  237,  306,  307,  484, 

500,  503,  526,  551,  584. 
Diaconate,  supposed  origin  of,  264  sq. 
Diatessaron,  of  Tatian,  138,  170. 
Dickson,  W.  P.,  595. 
Divorce,  Paul's  view  of,  449  sq. 
Doctrine  and  Life,  the  author's,  cited, 

509. 
Dorner,  I.  A.,  401. 
Drummond,  J.,  42. 
Du  Bose,  W.  P.,  596. 
Diisterdieck,  F.,  526,  539,  540,  551. 
Dwight,  T.,  171,  236,  306,  321,  399,  500, 

503,  584. 


Edersheim,  A.,  116. 

Election,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  380  sq. 

Ellicott,  C.  J.,  306. 

Enoch,  Book  of,  its  doctrine  of  the 

"  Son  of  man,"  44 ;  on  the  "  Son  of 

God,"  58;  308,315,316. 
Epistles  of  Paul,  criticism  of,  325  sq. 
Ernesti,  L.,  282,  595. 
Eschatology,    of   Jesus,    150   sq.;    of 

Paul,  470  sq. 
Esdras,   fourth  book  of,  on  the  title 

"Son  of  God,"  58. 
Eusebius,  Ecc.  Hist.,  249,  255,    482, 

525,  527. 
Everling,  O.,  595. 
Everett,  C.  C,  on  Paul's  "gospel," 

405,  406,  594. 
Ewald,  H.,  234. 

Faith,  in  Paul,  419  sq.;  doctrine  of,  in 
Hebrews,  515  sq. ;  in  the  Apocalypse, 
547. 

Family,  Paul's  views  of,  447  sq.,  457. 

Farrar,  F.  W.,  253,  255,  307,  484,  486, 
495,  526,  527. 

Fatherhood  of  God,65sq. ;  whether  uni- 
versal, 69. s^.  ;  in  John,  179 sg.,  572  sg. 

"  Flesh  and  Spirit,"  in  John,  189  sq. 

Flesh,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  338  sq. 

Forrest,  D.  W.,  on  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  469. 

Frommann,  K.,  595. 

Fulfilment,  Jesus'  doctrine  of,  17  sq.; 
107  sq. 

Future  lif.e,  grounds  of,  in  Jesus' 
teaching,  99  sq. 

Gebhardt,  H.,  539,  540,  541, 551,  596. 

Gess,  W.  F.,  540. 

Gifford,  E.  H.,  on  Phil.  ii.  5-11, 397,  595. 

Gifts,  spiritual,  434  sq. 

Gloag,  P.  J.,246,298. 

Gloel,  J.,  340,  444  ;  on  Paul's  doctrine 

of  the  Holy  Spirit,  432,  595. 
God,  the  fatherhood  of,  65  sq. ;  idea  of 

in  fourth  Gospel,   177  sq. ;    Paul's 

doctrine    of,    376    sq. ;     in    John's 

epistles,  569  sq. 
Godet,  F.,  225,  236,  391,  398,  486,  526. 
Gospel  of  Peter,  170. 
Gospel,   the    fourth,   authorship   and 

character    of,    167    sq. ;    subjective 

factor  in,  172  sq. 
Gospel,  the,  in  relation  to  Judaism, 

n  sq.;  the  Synoptic  and  Johannine 

discourses  in,  171  sq. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


599 


Gospels,  the  Synoptic,  origin  of,  1  sq.; 

historical  basis  of,  6  sq. 
Grafe,  E.,  374,  5'J5. 
Gunkel,  H.,  308 ;  on  the  doctrine  of  the 

Holy  Spirit  in  Paul,  431,  432,  436, 

440,441;  528,595. 

Harnack,  A.,  245,  246,  254;   on  Paul's 
epistles,  326;  401,485,  486,  526,  527, 
528. 
Hase,  C,  167. 

Hatch,  E.,  on  the  ministry  in  the 
apostolic  Church,  459. 

Hauj)t,  E.,  on  the  eschatology  of 
Jesus,  157,  162;  573,  584,  594. 

Hausrath,  A.,  401. 

Hebrews,  the  Epistle  to  the,  critical 
questions  relating  to,  483  sq. ;  au- 
thorship, 483  sq. ;  destination,  485 
sq.;  aim,  487;  relation  to  Paulinism, 
488  ;  to  Philonism,  488, 489 ;  on  the  old 
and  new  covenant,  490  sq. ;  on  the 
person  of  the  mediator,  498  sq. ;  on 
the  high  priesthood  of  Christ,  506 
sq. ;  its  doctrine  of  faith,  515  sq.;  of 
love  and  hope,  519  sq. 

Heinrici,  C.  F.  G.,  393. 

Hilgenfeld,  A.,  196,  325,  401,  595. 

Hill,  J.  H.,  138, 170. 

Holiness,  of  God,  184. 

Holsten,  C,  329,  339,  401,  444,  594. 

Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  10,  11,  .34,  42;  on 
the  meaning  of  "  Son  of  man,"  52; 
74,  77, 81,  83,  84;  154 ;  on  the  idea  of 
Satan  in  John,  197  ;  on  Christ's  pre- 
existence,  211 ;  219,  235,  237,  246 ;  on 
the  death  of  Christ,  271,  298 ;  on  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  in  1  Peter,  300; 
302,  307,  308,  321,  326,  339,  377,  393, 
395,  396,  398,  401 ;  on  Dr.  Everett's 
theory  of  Christ's  death,  406;  432, 
447,  453,  485,  486,  526,  528 ;  on  the 
millennial  idea,  555 ;  on  John's  pro- 
logue, 584,  593. 

Holtzmann,  0.,  196,  528,  596. 

Holy  Spirit,  nature  of,  according  to 
Paul,  442  sq. 

Hope,  in  Hebrews,  520  sq. 

Hort,  F.  J.  A.,  on  the  Church,  140; 
173,  251  ;  on  the  ministry  in  the 
apostolic  Church,  459 ;  486,  596. 

Horton,  R.  F.,  594. 

Huther,  J.  E.,  307,  321,  584. 

Imputation,  in  Paul,  430. 
Irenaeus,  on  the  Gospels,  3,  4 ;  527. 


Israel,  God's  election  of,  380  sq. 
Issel,  E.,  27,  444. 

Jacob,  L.,  17. 

James,  Epistle  of,  245  sq. ;  doctrinal 

contents  of,  276  sq. 
Jesus  Christ,  his  modes  of  teaching,  8, 
9;  his  relation  to  the  thought  of  his 
time,  11  sq. ;  his  attitude  towards 
the  Jewish  law,  17  sq.;  his  doctrine 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  27  sq. ;  as 
Son  of  man,  41  sq. ;  as  Son  of  God, 
54  sg. ;  aim  and  method  of  his  teach- 
ing, 76  sq.;  his  doctrine  of  sin,  92  sq. ; 
his  doctrine  of  righteousness,  104  sq. ; 
attitude  towards  civil  duties,  117 ; 
his  prediction  of  his  death,  123; 
his  teaching  concerning  his  coming, 
150  sq. ;  his  doctrine  of  judgment, 
163  sq. ;  183  sq. ;  his  self-testimony  in 
John,  199  sq. ;  his  preexistence,  205 
sq.;  as  "  the  bread  of  life,"  224 ;  his 
coming  and  judgment,  in  John,  234 
sq. ;  early  disciples'  view  of  his 
death,  259  sg. ;  as  Jehovah's  servant, 
265  sq.;  doctrine  of,  in  James,  287 
sq.;  in  1  Peter,  297  sq.;  his  death, 
according  to  1  Peter,  301  sq. ;  Paul's 
doctrine  of,  389  sq. ;  his  preexist- 
ence, 392  sq.;  his  humiliation,  396 
sq. ;  his  deity,  397  sq. ;  doctrine  of 
his  death,  in  Paul,  403  sq. ;  his  per- 
son, in  Hebrews,  498  sq. ;  his  saving 
work,  506  sq. ;  doctrine  of,  in  the 
Apocalypse,  536  sq.  See  Messiah; 
Son  of  man;  Son  of  God;  Logos. 

Jewish  thought,  in  Jesus'  time,  11  sq.; 
respecting  God's  kingdom,  28  sq. 

Johannme  Theology,  the  author's, 
cited,  175,  191,  206,"  227,  229,  235,  237, 
587,  591,  596. 

John,  the  apostle.  Gospel  of,  166  .sg. ; 
characteristics  of  his  thought,  564  sq. 

"Jonah,  sign  of,"  77,  226. 

Jowett,  B.,  373. 

Jude,  Epistle  of,  253  sq. ;  its  theo- 
logical contents,  317  sq. 

Judgment,  Christ's  doctrine  of,  163 
sq. ;  inseparable  from  Christ's  work, 
183  sq.;  in  John,  241  sq.;  in  Paul's 
teaching,  480  sq. 

Jiilicher,  A.,  11;  on  the  historicity  of 
the  fourth  Gospel,  167 ;  246,  254,  325, 
326,  485,  486,  527. 

Justification,  in  James,  288 sg-. ;  Paul's 
doctrine  of,  417  sq. 


600 


GENERAL   INDEX 


Kabisch,  R.,  on  Paul's  idea  of  spirit, 
444,  595. 

Kendrick,  A.  C,  500. 

Kingdom,  the  tlieocratic,  57  sq. ;  of  God, 
Jesus'  doctrine  of,  27  sq.;  Old  Tes- 
tament idea  of,  28  sq. ;  the  "  Son  of 
man  "  as  head  and  founder  of,  50  sq. ; 
relation  of,  to  the  Church,  in  Jesus' 
teaching,  135  sq. ;  relation  of,  to 
Christ's  parousia,  150  sq. ;  in  Paul, 
458. 

Kingman,  PI.,  on  the  apocalyptic  pas- 
sages in  the  Gospels,  158. 

Klopper,  A.,  325,  377,  393. 

Knowling,  R.  J.,  335. 

Kohler,  H.,  596. 

Kostlin,  K.  R.,  595. 

Krummacher,  F.  W.,  197. 

Kiihl,  E.,  on  Paul's  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion, 387. 

Laidlaw,  J.,  596. 

Lamb  of  God,  in  the  Apocalypse,  536 

sq. ;  in  John's  epistles,  588. 
Lange,  J.  P.,  84,  219,  234. 
Law,  the  Jewish,  in  relation  to  the 

gospel,   17  sq.;   Paul's  doctrine  of, 
■     362  sg. 
Lechler,  G.  V.,  220,  247,  253,  294,  298, 

302,  307,  308,  539,  541,  593. 
Leviticalism,  in  Hebrews,  493. 
Life,  eternal,  in  -John,  224  sq. 
Light,  John's  use  of,  570  sq. 
Lightfoot,    John,    on    "binding    and 

loosing,"   143;    on   "the    bread    of 

life,"  226. 
Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  171,  251,  373,  .395;  on 

the  ministry  in  the  apostolic  Church, 

459,  527. 
Lipsius,  R.  A.,  377,  392,  398,  400,  595. 
Logia,  of  Jesus,  2;  of  Matthew,  4  sq. 
Logos,  John's  doctrine  of,  57780-. ;  roots 

of  the  idea  in  the  Old  Testament, 

577-579 ;  in  Pliilo,  579,  580 ;  use  of,  by 

John,  580  sq. 
Lord's   supper,   Paul's   view  of,  461, 

463  sq. 
Lorenz,  398. 
Love,   its   place   in   Jesus'    teaching, 

109  sq.;    in  Paul,  446  sq.;    in  He- 
brews,   51i)  ;     in    John's    epistles, 

570  sq. 
Liicke,  F.,  185,  225,  236,  237,  390,  551. 
Liideraann,  H.,  339,  595. 
Luke,  Gospel  of,  2-4. 
Liinemann,  G.,  484,  492,  495,  500. 


Liitgert,  W.,  27. 
Luthardt,  C.  E.,  234. 
Luther,  M.,  321,  482. 

McGiffert,  A.  C,  247,  327,  333;  on  the 
ministry  in  tlie  apostolic  Church, 
460 ;  on  baptism  for  the  dead,  461 ; 

485,  486,  528,  593. 
Macintosh,  R.,  17. 

"  Man  of  sin,"  Paul's  view  of,  473. 

Mark,  Gospel  of,  3. 

Marriage,  Paul's  treatment  of,  447  sq. 

Matheson,  G.,  594. 

Mathews,  S.,  594. 

Matthew,  Gospel  of,  4,  5. 

Mayor,  J.  B.,  246,  250,  251,  252. 

Mead,  C.  M.,  on  the  fatherhood  of 
God,  181 ;  on  Dr.  Everett's  theory  of 
Christ's  death,  406. 

Mediator,  doctrine  of,  in  Hebrews,  498 
sq. ;  his  humanity,  499;  his  eternity, 
501  5^7. 

Melchizedek,  priesthood  of,  506,  507. 

Menegoz,  E.,  325 ;  on  the  development 
of  Paul's  theology,  331;  340;  on 
Paul's  doctrine  of  "the  flesh,"  342; 
on  Paul's  idea  of  sin,  353;  on  Paul's 
doctrine  of  law,  364,  374;  on  God's 
love,  377 ;  388,  393;  on  the  person  of 
Christ,  394,  395,  398;  on  Paul's 
Christology,  400,  401;  on  Paul's  doc- 
trine of  justification,  417,  418,  485, 

486,  488,  498,  595,  596. 

Messiah,  Jewish  doctrine  of,  14  sq. ; 
relation  of  "  Son  of  man  "  to,  52  .sg. ; 
"  Son  of  God  "  in  relation  to,  59  sq. ; 
the  Messianic  consciousness,  62  sq.; 
doctrine  of,  in  the  primitive  apos- 
tolic theology,  259  sq. ;  in  1  Peter, 
294  sq. ;  Jewish  rejection  of,  381  sq. 

Messner,  H.,  598. 

Meyer,  H.  A.  W.,  33,  42 ;  on  the  mean- 
ing of  "  Son  of  man,"  46;  74,  77,  81, 
83,  164,  185,  199,  220,  225,  234,  236, 
237,  306,  367,  370,  377,  390,  398,  526. 

Millennium,  555. 

Ministry,  in  the  apostolic  Church, 
459. 

Moll,  C.  B.,  492,  500. 

Moorhouse,  J.,  on  the  aim  and  method 
of  Jesus'  teaching,  77,  78,  594. 

Morality,  social,  Paul's  views  of, 
446  sq. 

Morison,  J.,  81,  83. 

Miiller,  K.,  595. 

Mysticism,  Paul's,  357  sq. 


GENERAL   INDEX 


601 


Neander,  A.,  on  "  the  Son  of  man," 

46,  593. 
Neighbor,     meaning    of,    for    Jesus, 

111  sq. 

Oehler,  G.  F.,  on  the  traditional  divi- 
sion of  the  Mosaic  law,  3(35. 
Old  Testament,  its  idea  of  God,  65  sq. 
Olshausen,  H.,  391. 
Origen,  482. 
Orr,  J.,  205,  482. 

Papias,  on  the  origin  of  the  Gospels, 
3,4. 

Parables,  of  Jesus,  9-11 ;  implying  the 
sonship  of  Christ,  54,  55 ;  use  of 
popular  language  in,  79. 

"  Paraclete,"  meaning  of,  213  sq.,  589. 

Parousia,  Jesus'  doctrine  of,  150  sq.; 
Paul's  view  of,  448;  its  nearness, 
470  sq.    See  "  Coming  "  of  Christ. 

Patton,  W.  W.,  306. 

Pauline  Theology,  the  author's, 
cited,  333,  336,  349,  358,  359,  415,  427, 
594. 

Paul,  the  apostle,  his  theology,  325  sq. ; 
his  religious  history,  .327  sq.;  his 
conversion,  329  sq. :  the  development 
of  his  theology,  331 ;  his  education, 
332  sq. ;  his  knowledge  of  the  his- 
torical Christ,  334  sq.;  his  doctrine 
of  "flesh  and  spirit,"  338  sq.;  his 
attitude  towards  asceticism,  .347  sq. ; 
his  view  of  Adam  and  the  race, 
349  .sg. ;  his  view  of  death,  351  sq. ; 
his  doctrine  of  the  law,  362  sq.;  on 
^S  divilJB  IJUrpUbSii,  6V^sq. ;  his  doc- 
trine of  election,  380  sq. ;  on  the 
person  of  Christ,  389  sq.;  on  Christ's 
humiliation,  396  sq. ;  on  his  deity, 
397  sq. ;  on  Christ's  death,  403  sq. ; 
his  doctrine  of  justification,  417  sq. ; 
his  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
431  sq.;  on  social  relations,  446  sq. ; 
on  the  Church,  458  sq. ;  his  eschatol- 
ogy,  470  sq. ;  his  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection,  474  sq. 

Peabody,  A.  P.,  171. 

Peter  as  the  "rock"  of  the  Church, 
137  sq.;  teaching  of,  in  1  Peter, 
293  sq. ;  epistles  of,  245  sq. ;  the 
the  first,  its  doctrinal  contents,  293; 
the  second,  its  teaching,  318  sq. 

Pfleiderer,  O.,  216,  254, 298 ;  on  Christ's 
preexistence,  300;  302,  307,  308,  329, 
339,  367,  370,  377,  398,  401,  432,  444, 


447,   485,   486,    526,    528,    540,    593, 

594. 
Plummer,  A.,  236,  584. 
Plumptre,  E.  H.,  307,  321. 
Porter,  F.  C,  308. 
Possession,  demoniacal,  86  sq. ;   view 

of,  in  John,  193  sq. 
Pot  win,  L.  S.,  84. 
Preexistence    of   Christ,  in    1  Peter, 

2m  sq.;  in  Paul,  392  50-. 
Priesthood    of    Christ,    in    Hebrews, 

506  sq. ;    doctrinal  significance  of, 

512  sq. 
Prologue,  of  Luke,  2  sq. 
Property,     private,    Jesus'     attitude 

towards,  117 ;  Paul's  view  of,  453. 
Propitiation,  Paul's  idea  of,  412  sq. ; 

in  John's  epistles,  589,  590. 
Purpose,  the  divine,  Paul's  doctrine 

of,  374  sq. 

Ramsay,  W.  M.,  246,  249,  527,  528. 
Ransom,  idea  of,  in  Jesus'  teaching, 

126  sq. 

Reconciliation,    Paul's    doctrine    of, 

409  sq. 
Redemption,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  409  sg. 
Renan,  E.,  484. 
Rendall,  F,,  on  the  destination  of  the 

Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  486 ;  on  the 

word  diadTiKTj  in  Hebrews,  511,  596. 
Resurrection,  in  fourth  Gospel,  238 sg. ; 

Paul's  doctrine  of,  474  sq. 
Reuss,  E.,  on  "  the  Son  of  man,"  47  ; 

on  the  title  "  Son  of  God,"  62;  175  ; 

on  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

216, 217, 234, 236 ;  on  the  eschatology 

of  John,  237 ;  247,  307,  398,  541,  593. 
Riehm,  E.  K.  A.,  492,  498,  500,  503,  bm. 
Riggenbach,  E.,  595. 
Righteousness,    in    Jesus'    teaching, 

104  sq.;    "of  God,"  in  Paul,  378; 

view  of,  in  Paul's  teaching,  418  sq. 
Ritschl,  A.,  on  the  idea  of  ransom, 

127  sq. ;  251,  302,  377,  398,  444,  484. 
Robinson,  J.  A.,  170. 

Roman  power,  view  of,  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse, .554  sq. 

Romanes,  G.  J.,  on  demoniacal  posses- 
sion, 90. 

Row,  C.  A.,  86. 

Sabatier,  A.,  on  the  development  of 
Paul's  theology,  331;  340,  393,  395, 
528,  594. 

Salmon,  G.,  253,  254,  484,  526,  528. 


602 


GENERAL   INDEX 


Salmonfl,  S.  D.  F.,  157,  166,  305,  596. 

Salvation,  synoptic  doctrine  of,  119 
sq. ;  doctrine  of,  in  1  Peter,  296, 297  ; 
in  John's  epistles,  586  sq. 

Sanday,  W.,  174,  249 ;  on  the  relation 
of  James  and  Paul,  251, 252 ;  255,  370, 
398,  432,  486;  on  the  meaning  of 
IXaaTTjpLov,  413 ;  527. 

Satan,  Jesus'  teaching  concerning,  83 
sq. ;  doctrine  of,  in  John,  194  sq., 
587. 

Schmid,  C.  F.,  299. 

Schmidt,  H.,  on  the  Messianic  con- 
sciousness of  Jesus,  63. 

Schmidt,  R.,  595. 

Schmidt,  W.  G.,  282,  596. 

Schmiedel,  P.  W.,  377. 

Schmoller,  O.,  27. 

Schultz,  H.,  on  the  Messianic  idea  in 
Daniel,  45. 

Schiirer,  E.,  15,  17,  27,  42,  44,  149.  555, 
594. 

Scrivener,  F.  H.  A.,  398. 

Seeburg,  A.,  on  the  worship  rendered 
to  Christ,  .390,  595. 

Simcox,  W.  H.,  551. 

Simon,  T.,  595. 

Sin,  Christ's  doctrine  of,  in  the  Synop- 
tics, 92  sq. ;  in  John,  187  sq. ;  rela- 
tion of  the  Spirit's  work  to,  221  sq. ; 
Paul's  doctrine  of,  338  sq. ;  its  he- 
redity aspect,  353  sq. ;  relation  of  the 
law  to,  in  Paul's  teaching,  369  sq. 

Slavery,  Paul's  views  of,  450  sq. 

Smith,  G.  A.,  138. 

Smith,  W.  R.,  on  Jewish  sacrifice,  409. 

Somerville,  D.,  392,  595. 

Son  of  God ,  Synoptic  doctrine  of ,  54  sq . ; 
Old  Testament  ideas  of,  56  sq.; 
Johannine  doctrine  of,  20  sq. 

Son  of  man,  meaning  of,  41  sg. ;  apocry- 
phal doctrine  of,  44  .sq. ;  Old  Testa- 
ment doctrine  of,  45  sq.;  theories 
concerning,  46  sq. 

Sonship  to  God,  human,  meaning  of, 
60;  in  John's  teaching,  591,  592. 

Soul,  living  {ipvxv  T'^ca),  350. 

Spirit,  in  contrast  to  flesh,  189  sq. ; 
Paul's  doctrine  of,  in  contrast  to  the 
flesh,  338  sq. 

Spirit,  the  Holy,  doctrine  of,  in  John, 
213  sq. ;  popular  view  of,  in  apostolic 
age,  432  sq. ;  Paul's  doctrine  of, 
431  sq. 

Spirits,  good  and  evil,  76  sq.;  "in 
prison,"  304  sq. 


Spitta,  F.,  307,  308, 528 ;  on  the  relation 
of  2 Peter  and  Jude,  255  sq. ;  on  the 
phrase  "  private  interpretation," 
320;  540. 

Stanton,  V.  H.,  15;  on  the  "Son  of 
man,"  42,  47. 

State,  the,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  451  sq. 

Steck,  R.,  325. 

Stephen,  his  defence,  272  sq. 

Supper,  the  Lord's,  import  of,  124  sq. 

Tatian.    See  Diatessaron. 

Teichmann,  E.,  595. 

Terry,  M.  S.,  523. 

Tertullian,  482. 

Thayer's  Lexicon,  321,  498. 

Tholuck,  F.  A.  G.,  33,  219,  234,  500. 

Tischendorf,  C,  124,  317,  495. 

Titius,  A.,  27,  594. 

Trench,  R.  C,  9,  55L 

Usteri,  L.,  594. 

Vincent,  M.  R.,  169;  on  the  ministry 
in  the  apostolic  Church,  460. 

Vischer,  E.,  528,  540. 

Volkmar,  G.,  196. 

V51ter,  D.,  528,  540. 

Von  Soden,  H.,  321,  326,  359,  370,  377; 
on  Paul's  ethics,  453;  485. 

Warfield,  B.  B.,  255,  528. 

Watson,  John,  on  Lk.  xv.,  96,  97. 

Weber,  F.,  13,  15. 

Weiffenbach,  E.  W.,  on  Christ's  com- 
ing, 154,  157. 

Weiss,  B.,  6,  10,  28,  30,  33,  34;  on  the 
meaning  of  "  Son  of  man,"  51,  52; 
74,  77,  81,  84 ;  on  demoniacal  posses- 
sion, 87,  88 ;  117, 124 ;  on  the  Church, 
1.37-139 ;  144,  14(> ;  on  the  apocalyptic 
passages  in  the  Synoptics,  157 ;  164, 
166,  174 ;  on  the  fourth  Gospel,  175 ; 
185,  199,  220,  225,  229,  234,  237,  247, 
251,  254 ;  on  the  lordship  of  Christ, 
268 ;  298,  302,  307,  308,  321 ;  on  the 
criticism  of  Paul's  epistles,  326 ;  359 ; 
on  Eph.  ii.  3,  370,  377,  391,  393,  398, 
484,  486,  492,  495,  526,  528,  539,  540, 
541,  551,  584,  593,  596. 

Weiss,  J.,  27. 

Weizsacker,  C,  167,  246;  on  the  death 
of  Christ,  271;  329,  393;  on  Paul's 
Christology,  402,  447,  485,  526,  527, 
528,  540,  544;  on  Antichrist  in  the 
Apocalypse,  553,  593. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


603 


Wellhausen,  J.,  on  **  the  Son  of  man," 
50. 

Wendt,  H.  H.,  6;  on  parables,  9;  27, 
28,  34,  39;  on  the  "Son  of  man," 
47  sq. ;  55 ;  on  the  title  "  Son  of  God," 
59, 61 ;  on  the  consciousness  of  Christ, 
62 ;  74,  77,  81,  84,  86,  117, 125 ;  on  the 
idea  of  ransom,  126  sq.;  on  the 
Church,  138;  144,  154,  164,  166;  his 
view  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  168  sq.; 
185,  199;  on  Jesus'  sonship  to  God, 
201;  on  his  preexistence,  206  sq.; 
220;  229,341,432,444,595. 

Wernle,  P..  594. 


Westcott,  B.  F.,  185,  225,  486;  on  the 
meaning  of ' '  shadow ' '  and ' '  image ' ' 
in  Hebrews,  496,  500 ;  526,  527. 

Westcott  and  Hort,  124,  196,  199,  317, 
398,  495. 

Westminster  Catechism,  98. 

Weymouth,  R.  F.,  398. 

Winer,  G.  B.,  306. 

Woman,  Paul's  view  of  her  depend- 
ence, 460,  461. 

Works,  in  the  Apocalypse,  546. 

Wrath  of  God,  377 ;  according  to  Paul, 
415  sq. 

Zahn,  T.,  251,  252,  326. 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


[References  In  heavy -faced  type  indicate  passages  which  are  more  fully  discussed] 


[atthew : 

Matthew : 

Matthew : 

ii.  13 

557 

vi.  1-18 

105, 109 

viii.  19-22 

136 

iii.  17 

55 

vi.  4 

69 

viii.  20 

41,  46,  47,  52 

iv.  1-11 

83, 197 

vi.  6 

69 

viii.  28  sq. 

86 

iv.  3 

56 

vi.  8 

54,69 

viii.  29 

56,  284 

iy.  3  sq. 

122 

vi.  10            27 

,  34,  110 

viii.  33-37 

193 

iv.  18 

141 

vi.  12 

113 

viii.  37 

93 

V.  3-12 

93 

vi.  12-15 

192 

ix.  5 

146 

V.  7 

286 

vi.  14 

286 

ix.  12 

52 

V.8 

179, 185 

vi.  14,  15 

113 

ix.  13 

106 

V.9 

60 

vi.  15 

183 

ix.  15 

123 

V.  12 

79,206 

vi.  16-18 

107 

ix.  16 

23 

V.  13,  14 

147 

vi.  18 

69 

ix.  17 

23 

V.  16 

69 

vi.  19 

119,  281 

ix.  32,  33 

86 

V.  17 

65,  321 

vi.  19,  20 

114 

ix.  37,  38 

97 

V.  17  sq. 

19  sq. 

vi.  20 

119,  206 

X.  1-15 

150 

V.  18 

108 

vi.  22 

101 

X.2 

141 

V.  19 

17, 

107,  108 

vi.  22-24 

189 

X.  8 

87 

V.20 

20,39 

vi.  22-34 

110 

X.  15 

39 

V.  20 

104 

vi.  24,  25 

278 

X.  16 

114 

V.  20  sq. 

9 

vi.  25 

93 

X.  16-42 

150 

V.  21  sq. 

20,  105 

vi.  26 

69,71 

X.20 

223 

V.  22 

101, 

163,  191 

vi.  32 

69 

X.  23 

150  sq. 

V.  23,  24 

104 

vi.  33     27,  38, 

105, 115, 

X.27 

147 

V.  27,  28 

116 

190 

X.  28 

66, 109,  297 

V.  28 

101 

vii.  1 

114,  286 

X.  30,  31 

92 

V.  29,  30 

166 

vii.  1,  2 

114 

X.  32 

82, 119 

V.  32 

117 

vii.  3-5 

114 

X.  34,  35 

242 

V.  33-37 

20,21 

vii.  6 

114 

X.  39 

114 

V.  34 

79 

vii.  11     72,  74 

100,  192 

X.  40 

122 

V.  35 

66 

vii.  12 

111 

X.  42 

81,  164 

V.  38,  39 

18,21 

vii.  13 

38 

xi.  5 

121 

V.  40-42 

117 

vii.  13,  14 

115 

xi.  11 

38 

V.  42 

112 

vii.  14 

119 

xi.  12 

38 

V.43 

22 

vii.  16-18 

191 

xi.  19 

52,94 

V.  4a^8 

112, 

186,  280, 

vii.  17-20 

101 

xi.  20-24 

122 

311 

vii.  21-23 

163 

xi.  21 

119 

V.  45 

50,69 

70,  120 

vii.  22 

87 

xi.  25 

66 

V.  46,  47 

74 

vii.  28,  29 

31 

xi.  25-30 

122 

V.  47,  48 

112 

viii.  5-13 

147 

xi.  27     54, 

60,  203,  212 

V.  48    22, 

60,  69,  71,  74, 

viil.  11 

148 

xi.  28 

128 

104,  120, 182 

viii.  12 

36,44 

xi.  28-30 

119,  200 

605 

606 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS 


Matthew 
xi.  29 
xii.  7 
xii.  12 


xu. 


99 


xii.  25-29 
xii.  26 
xii.  28 
xii.  31-32 
xii.  33 
xii.  33  sq. 
xii.  34 
xii.  34  sq. 
xii.  35 
xii.  35-37 
xii.  37 
xii.  39 
xii.  40 
xii.  41,  42 
xii.  43-45 
xiii.  10-16 

11 

15 

18 

28 

33 


Xlll. 

xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii. 
xiii.  36 
xiii.  36^3 
xiii.  39 
xiii.  44 
xiii.  46 
xiii.  52 
xiii.  55 
xiii.  58 
xiv.  33 
xiv.  38 
XV.  21 
XV.  21  sq. 
XV.  22  sq. 
XV.  24 
XV.  34 
xvi.  4 
xvi.  13 
xvi.  16 
xvi.  17 
xvi.  18 
xvi.  19 
xvi.  21 
xvi.  22 
xvi.  23 
xvi.  26 
xvi.  27 
xvi.  28 
xvi.  33 
xvi.  41 
xvii.  6 


121 

106 

92 

86 

85 

91 

27,38 

102 

101 

163 

101,  191 

165 

101,  192 

191 

101 

22G 

76,77 

77,  121 

89 

121 

121 

119 

84 

84 

162,  559 

36 

84 

84 

120 

120 

65 

253 

122 

56 

190 

148 

147 

86 

146,  147 

134 

226 

42,  148 

56,  59 

190 

80,  137 

142 

123 

14,  294 

85 

93 

80,  166 

151 

194 

102 

55 


10-14 

15 

15-20 

18 

20 


Matthew : 
xvii.  14  sq. 
xvii.  24-27 
xviii.  1,  2 
xviii.  1-6 
xviii.  3 
xviii.  4 
xviii.  6 
xviii.  8  sq. 
xviii.  10 
xviii 
xviii 
xviii 
xviii 
xviii 
xviii.  21,  22 
xviii.  23  sq. 
xix.  1 
xix.  8 
xix.  9 
xix.  14 
xix.  16,  17 
xix.  28 
XX.  1  sq. 
XX.  9 
XX.  15 
XX.  25-28 
XX.  26 
xxi.  21 
xxi.  28  sq. 
xxi.  31 
xxi.  43 
xxii.  1  sq. 
xxii.  2  sq. 
xxii.  2  sq. 
xxii.  14 
xxii.  34-40 
xxii.  35-40 
xxii.  37,  38 
xxii.  38 
xxii.  39 
xxii.  40 
xxiii.  1-9 
xxiii.  8-10 
xxiii.  9 
xxiii.  13 
xxiv. 
xxiv.  14 
xxiv.  24 
xxiv.  26  sq. 
xxiv.  29 
xxiv.  31 
xxiv.  40 
XXV.  13 
XXV.  14  sq. 
XXV.  27 


86 
118 
141 

81 
97,  119 

32 
119 

93 

81 

114 

144 

139, 143 

136,  146 

113 

66,  113 

148 

18 

117 

98 

74,  75 

141 

115 

115 

115 

124 

32 

27 

9 

37,  38,  94 

27,  37,  162 

106,  120 

120 

55,  66 

120 

104 

186 

231 

107 

111 

105 

71 

136 

69 

38 

150  sq.,  234 

148,  162 

550 

159 

161 

41,200 

160 

160 

115,  159 

114 


41 


Matthew : 
XXV.  31 
XXV.  31-46 
XXV.  34 
XXV.  46 
xxvi.  13 

xxvi.28  125,127 
xxvi.  42 
xxvi.  53 
xxvi.  63 
xxvi.  64 
xxvii.  40 
xxvii.  54 
xxviii.  18-20 
xxviii.  20 


158, 


80,200 

163  sq. 

208 

166 

148 

130 

34 

81 

56,59 

238,  445 

56 

56 

146 

223 


Mark: 
i.  10 
i.  11 

i.  12 


i.  15 
i.  16 
i.  17 

i.  121  sq. 
i.  27 
i.  34 
i.  44 
ii.  7 
ii.  10 
ii.  14  sq. 
ii.  15 
ii.  17 
ii.  20 
ii.  21 
ii.  21,  22 
ii.  26 
ii.  27 
ii.  28 
iii.  13-19 
iii.  15 
iii.  18 
iii.  22-27 
iii.  24 
iii.  28,  29 
iii.  28,  30 
iv.  3 
iv.  3  sq. 
iv.  10-12 
iv.  14 
iv.  15 
iv.  26-29 
iv.  21  sq. 
iv.  25 
iv.  28 
V.  1  sq. 
V.  7 


223 

55 

223 

27,  31,  119 

141 

136,  147 

86 

31 

87 

107 

48 

40,  52,  200 

137 

94,  116 

9,  120 

107,  123 

9 

31,  106 

91 

47,92 

41,  48,  52 

135 

87,  141 

137 

85 

9 

102 

52 

56 

9,  121 

121 

98 

84,  197 

35,84 

121 

121 

17,  162 

86 

56 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS 


607 


MCark: 

Mark: 

Luke: 

vi.  3 

253 

xii.  19 

100 

vi.  7 

92 

vi.  5 

122 

xii.  24 

66,99 

vi.  12-16 

135 

vi.  7-11 

150 

xii.  24-27 

1G6 

vi.  14 

141 

vi.  7-13 

136 

xii.  25 

80,  166 

vi.  15 

253 

vi.  12 

119 

xii.  26 

166 

vi.  20  sq. 

33  sq.,  276 

vii.  10-13 

116 

xii.  27 

100 

vi.  36 

22 

vii.  15 

18 

xii.  28-31 

104,  186 

vi.  43^5 

163 

vii.  20-23 

101,  191 

xii.  29,  30 

179 

vii.  1-10 

147 

vii.  24 

148 

xii.  30,  31 

231 

vii.  9 

99 

vii.  25  sq. 

86 

xii.  31 

111 

vii.  22 

276 

viii.  13 

52 

xii.  32-34 

106 

vii.  29 

116 

viii.  27 

42,  148 

xii.  33 

18 

vii.  34 

116 

viii.  29 

56 

xii.  35-37 

91 

vii.  37 

116 

viii.  31 

41,  200,  268 

xii.  37 

95 

vii.  50 

120 

viii.  315?. 

123 

xii.  41-44 

113 

viii.  9,  10 

121 

viii.  33 

85 

xiii. 

150  sq.,  234 

viii.  12 

84 

Adii.  34 

194 

xiii.  9-13 

150 

viii.  18 

121 

viii.  35 

114 

xiii.  14 

152 

viii.  26  sq. 

86 

viii.  35,  36 

297 

xiii.  24 

161 

viii.  28 

56 

viii.  36,  37 

119 

xiii.  32 

54,  80, 151, 

ix.  1-5 

150 

viii.  37 

93 

203 

ix.  18  sq. 

42 

viii.  38 

80 

xiii.  37 

160 

ix.  20 

56 

ix.  1 

38,  151 

xiv.  9 

148 

ix.  22 

123 

ix.  8 

55 

xiv.  12 

107 

ix.  25 

93,  189 

ix.  17 

88 

xiv.  21 

200 

ix.  27 

151 

ix.  17  sq. 

86 

xiv.  22-24 

124 

ix.  35 

55 

ix.  31 

41,52 

xiv.  24 

270 

ix.  37  sq. 

86 

ix.  36 

81 

xiv.  25 

38 

ix.  49,  50 

87 

ix.  38,  39 

87 

xiv.  32-36 

126 

X.  12-16 

164 

ix.  42 

81,  119 

xiv.  36 

66 

X.  16 

79 

ix.  43  sq. 

93 

xiv.  38 

102 

X.  17 

85,  197 

ix.  47,  48 

166 

xiv.  58 

106,  178 

X.  19 

119 

X.  1 

148 

xiv.  61 

56,  59 

X.  21-24 

122 

x.  6-8 

117 

xiv.  62 

158,  238 

X.  22 

60,  203,  212 

X.  9-12 

117 

XV.  32 

56 

X.  25-28 

105 

X.  15 

120 

XV.  34 

126 

X.  29-37 

111 

X.  17  sq. 

12 

XV.  39 

56 

X.  30-37 

97 

X.  17,  18 

74 

XV.  43 

29 

X.40 

116 

X.  17-19 

105 

xvi.  15,  16 

146 

X.42 

114 

X.  18 

280 

xi.  1-4 

84 

X.  21,  22 

117 

Luke: 

xi.  2  sq. 

34 

X.  27 

66 

i.  1-4 

2sq. 

xi.  4 

100,  192 

X.  30 

119,  232 

iii.  22 

55 

xi.  14 

86 

X.  37  sq. 

123 

iii.  23 

391 

xi.  17-22 

85 

X.  42-44 

136 

iv.  1-11 

83 

xi.  18 

91 

X.  42-45 

124 

iv.  3 

56 

xi.  19 

87 

X.  45 

127,  270 

iv.  18 

223 

xi.  24-26 

89 

xi.  15  sq. 

168 

iv.  31  sq. 

86 

xi.  29 

226 

xi.  22 

110 

iv.  38,  39 

88 

xi.  29,  30 

77,  122 

xi.23 

110 

iv.  41 

284 

xi.  37 

116 

xi.25 

70 

V.  29 

116 

xii.  4 

119 

xi.  30 

79 

V.  30 

94 

xii.  8 

82 

xii.  1  sq. 

54.55 

V.  31,  32 

95 

xii.  11,  12 

150 

xii.  17 

117,  452 

V.  35 

123 

xii.  15 

117 

xii.  18  sq. 

99 

V.  39 

26,  274 

xii.  15-21 

93, 119 

608 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS 


Luke: 

Luke: 

John: 

xii.  20 

114 

xix.  8 

117 

iii.  14,  15 

228 

xii.  25-27 

136 

xix.  10 

41.52 

iii.  15,  16 

224 

xii.  27 

87 

xix.  11 

29,  161 

iii.  16 

180, 

187,  192, 

xii.  32 

70 

xix.  11-27 

159 

231,  570 

xii.  33 

79 

xix.  11  sq. 

115 

iii.  16-21 

200  sq. 

xii.  3G  sq. 

115 

XX.  35,  36 

166 

iii.  17 

183,  192 

xii.  42 

107 

XX.  36 

60 

iii.  18 

243 

xii.  49 

123 

xxi.             150  sq.,  234  | 

iii.  19 

187 

,  198,  242 

xii.  51-53 

242 

xxi.  12-17 

150 

iii.  19-21 

188 

xiii.  11 

86,88 

xxi.  20 

152 

iii.  21 

575 

xiii.  16 

86 

xxi.  25 

161 

iii.  35 

179 

xiii.  20 

87 

xxii.  19,  20 

124 

iii.  36 

232 

xiii.  25-27 

163 

xxii.  31 

197 

iv.  22 

566 

xiii.  28-30 

148 

xxii.  32 

85 

iv.  23 

180,  573 

xiii.  29 

38 

xxii.  43 

79 

iv.  24 

177  sq. 

xiii.  32 

91 

xxii.  69 

158,  238 

V.  16-47 

201  sq. 

xiv.  11 

53 

xxiii.  37 

56 

V.  17 

181 

xiv.  13,  14 

112 

xxiii.  42,  43 

98 

V.  19  sq. 

182,238 

xiv.  14 

166 

xxiv.  7 

52 

V.20 

179 

xiv.  15 

29 

xxiv.  19,  20 

260 

V.  21 

231 

xiv.  16  sq. 

55,  120 

xxiv.  21 

32,  161 

V.  22 

183,  244 

xiv.  21 

276 

xxiv.  25-27 

133 

V.  22,  23 

183 

xiv.  26 

117 

xxiv.  25-49 

125 

V.  24 

232 

xiv.  33 

117 

xxiv.  26,  27 

260, 269 

V.  25 

231 

XV.  3-10 

95 

xxiv.  44-46 

260 

V.  26 

572 

XV.  4-7 

93 

xxiv.  44-47 

133 

V.  27 

199, 

200,  242 

XV.  7 

96,100 

xxiv.  46,  47 

270 

V.29 

166, 

241,242 

XV.  10 

82,96 

xxiv.  47 

119 

V.  30 

242 

XV.  llsg.  9,71 

96, 120 

V.  37 

574 

XV.  18 

79 

John : 

V.  44 

179 

xvi.  1  sq. 

11 

i.  1  sq. 

582  sg. 

vi.  27 

199,  200 

xvi.  9 

112,  115 

i-4,  5 

571 

vi.  29 

228 

xvi.  9-11 

117 

i.  5 

577,  587 

vi.  32-58 

201  sg.,  224 

xvi.  18 

117 

i.  6 

575 

sq. 

xvi.  19  sq. 

79 

i.  11 

556 

vi.  33 

232 

xvi.  22 

82 

i.  12             73,  574,  592 

vi.  35 

229 

xvii.  2 

81 

i.  13            28b 

,  591,  592 

vi.  37-39 

179 

xvii.  3 

114 

i.  14 

201 

vi.  39  sq. 

237,  238 

xvii.  4 

113 

i.  14-16 

168 

vi.  46 

178 

xvii.  10 

109 

i.  17 

556,  574 

vi.  47 

228,  229 

xvii.  11 

148 

i.  18 

201,  574 

vi.  53 

199 

xvii.  11-19 

147 

i.  29 

589 

vi.  54 

232 

xvii.  14 

107 

i.47 

566 

vi.  57 

182,  572 

xvii.  20 

29,  162 

1.51 

199 

vi.  62 

199,  205  sq. 

xvii.  20  — xviii 

.8    159 

ii.  11 

229 

vi.  63 

182,  190 

xvii.  20,  21 

32,38 

ii.  13  sq. 

168 

vi.  70 

194 

xvii.  22 

162 

ii.  23,  24 

228 

vii.  20 

193 

xviii.  9 

94 

iii.  3 

224 

viii.  12 

188,  571 

xviii.  9  sq. 

95,  120 

iii.  3-5 

286 

viii.  15 

183 

243,  244 

xviii.  13 

109 

iii.  3-8 

591 

viii.  16 

242 

243,  244 

xviii.  16 

98 

iii.  5 

224,  569 

viii.  21 

191 

xviii.  18,  19 

74 

iii.  6 

189 

viii.  23 

188 

xviii.  30 

232 

iii.  7 

20(5 

viii.  24 

191 

xix.  1-10 

98 

iii.  13 

199 

viii.  28 

199,  200 

xix.  5 

116 

iii.  14 

199,  200 

viii.  29 

242 

INDEX   OF   TEXTS 


609 


ahn: 

John : 

Acts: 

viii.  31 

228 

xiv.  30 

187 

ii.  21 

272 

viii.  33-36 

188 

XV.  1-9 

229 

ii.  22-24 

265,  268 

viii.  34 

190,  191 

XV.  9 

180 

ii.  23 

269 

viii.  40 

194 

XV.  12 

233 

ii.  25 

266,  272 

viii.  41-44 

181 

XV.  13 

227 

ii.  25-28 

260, 268 

viii.  41 

194  sq.,  206 

XV.  16 

180 

ii.  26 

272 

viii.  48 

193 

XV.  19 

206 

ii.  33 

265 

viii.  52 

193,  232 

XV.  26 

213,  214,  217, 

ii.  34,  35 

266 

viii.  55 

230 

220 

ii.  34,  35 

260 

viii.  58 

205  sq. 

xvi.  3 

185 

ii.36 

265 

ix.  2 

191 

xvi.  7 

217,  220,  235 

ii.  38 

146,  271 

ix.  2,  3 

169 

xvi.  8 

214 

ii.39 

271,  272 

ix.  39 

242,  243 

xvi.  8-11 

222  sq.,  238 

ii.42 

263 

ix.  41 

188 

xvi.  13 

21^  sq. 

ii.  46 

263 

X.  11 

227 

xvi.  14 

214  sq. 

iii.  13 

265,  269 

X.  10 

232 

xvi.  16 

235 

iii.  14 

267 

X.  15 

227 

xvi.  22 

219,  235 

iii.  14, 15 

266 

X.  17 

180 

xvi.  23 

180 

iii.  15 

268,  269 

X.  20 

193 

xvi.  27 

180 

iii.  16 

265,  267 

X.  28 

231 

xvi.  28 

187,  206 

iii.  17 

269 

X.  30 

203 

xvii.  1,  2 

2,38 

iii.  18 

269 

X.  34,  35 

503 

xvii.  3     179,  185,  229, 

iii.  19-21 

271 

X.  35 

321,  366 

567 

iii.  21 

265 

X.  38 

203 

xvii.  5 

187,  200,  203, 

iii.  24  sq. 

258 

xi.  23  sq. 

239  sq. 

205  sq. 

,400 

iv.  16 

265,  269 

xi.  25 

230,  233,  239 

xvii.  11 

184 

iv.  11 

269 

xi.  27 

187 

xvii.  14 

187 

iv.  11, 12 

296 

xii.  23 

199,  200 

xvii.  19 

227 

iv.  12 

267,  271 

xii.  24  sq. 

227 

xvii.  20 

577 

iv.  18 

146 

xii.  31 

187,  222,  242 

xvii.  21 

203 

iv.26 

266 

xii.  32 

238 

xvii.  23 

180 

iv.  27          265 

,  267,  269 

xii.  33 

228 

xvii.  24 

179, 187, 

iv.  28 

269 

xii.  34 

42,  228 

205  5? 

iv.  30 

265 

xii.  35 

188 

xvii.  25 

184, 187 

iv.  34,  35 

263 

xii.  4G 

188 

xviii.  36 

187 

iv.  36,  37 

264 

xii,  46,  47 

187,  192 

XX.  22 

216,  219 

V.  4 

264 

xii.  47 

183,  243,  244 

XX.  23 

191 

V.  30 

269 

xii.  48 

244 

XX.  29 

221 

V.  31          266, 

267,  269, 

xii.  48-50 

183 

xxi.  22 

236 

271 

xii.  49 

242 

xxi.  24 

169 

vi.  1 

264 

xiii.  2 

194 

vi.  11-14 

272 

xiii.  12-20 

168 

Acts: 

vi,  48 

273 

xiii.  31 

199 

i.  3 

260 

vii. 

258 

xiv.  3 

219,  234 

i.  6 

29,  32, 161 

vii.  53 

491 

xiv.  6 

230 

i.  10,  11 

261 

vii.  56 

266 

xiv.  7 

185,  230 

i.  13 

141,  253,  263 

viii.  14-17 

433 

xiv.  9 

178,  185,  203 

i.  14 

263 

viii.  16 

146 

xiv.  11 

203 

i.  44 

263 

viii.  18 

432 

xiv.  16 

213,214  60. 

ii. 

142,  263 

viii.  21 

432 

xiv.  17  187, 213,  214  sg. 

ii.4 

342 

viii.  26  sq. 

272 

xiv.  18 

235,  236 

ii.  5 

272 

viii.  30  sq. 

258 

xiv.  18,  19 

218 

ii.  13-21 

269 

viii.  39,  40 

432 

xiv.  21-23 

186 

ii.  16  sq. 

162,  530 

ix.  22 

330 

xiv.  23 

180 

ii.l7 

147,  432 

ix.  26-30 

331 

xiv.  26 

213,  214  so. 

ii.  20 

266 

X,  1  sq. 

272 

2b 

610 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS 


Acts: 
X.  25 
X.  25,  26 
X.  34 
X.  34,  35 
X.  36  sq. 
X.  38 
X.42 
X.  43 
X.45 
X.48 
xi.  1 
xi.  2,  3 
xi.  3 
xi.  14 
xi.  18 
xi.  22  sq. 
xii.  12 
xiii. 

xiii.  38,  39 
xiii.  46 
xiii.  50 
xiv. 
xiv.  2 
xiv.  4 
xiv.  14 
xiv.  17 
xiv.  27 

XV.  1 

XV.  7 
XX.  9-11 
XV.  22 
XV.  24 
XV.  27 
XV.  28 
XV.  29 
XV.  32 
xvi.  15 
xvi.  15-18 
xvi.  31 
xvi.  33,  34 
xvii.  13 
xvii.  26-28 
xvii.  31 
xviii.  8 
xviii.  24  sq. 
xix.  1-7 
xix.  5 
xix.  35-41 
XX.  29 
XX.  29,  30 
XX.  35 
xxi.  28 
xxii.  15 
xxii.  22-49 
xxiv.  15 


James : 

James : 

331 

i.  1 

253,  276,  287 

iv.  12 

285,  287 

141 

i.  2 

295 

iv.  14-17 

292 

147 

i.  2-4 

277 

iv.  15 

279 

296 

i.  5 

279,  286 

iv.  15, 16 

283 

266,  269 

i.  5-8 

278 

iv.  17 

283 

265 

i.  6 

278,  281 

V.  1-6 

277 

267 

i.  6-8 

281 

V.  3 

287 

267 

i.  9-11 

276 

V.  4 

276,  279 

272 

i.  10, 11 

276 

V.7 

287 

146 

i.  12 

287 

V.  8 

287 

147 

i.  13-18 

279 

V.  7-9 

278 

141,  273 

i.  14 

292 

V.  9 

277,  287 

272 

i.  14,  15 

282 

V.  11 

280,  285,  286 

462 

i.  15 

284 

V.  11,  12 

279 

147 

i.  17 

279,  286 

V.  13-15 

292 

147 

i.  18 

286,  287 

V.  16 

292 

264 

i.  19 

278 

V.  20 

282,  284,  292 

332 

i.  19,  20 

278,  283 

418 

i.  19-27 

281 

1  Peter: 

473 

i.  21 

285,  286,  287, 

i.  1 

303 

473 

292 

i.  1,2 

295 

332 

i.22 

278 

i.2 

295,  298,  299, 

473 

i.  22-24 

283 

301,  310 

484 

i.25 

285 

i.  3 

294,  295,  296, 

484 

i.  27 

279,  280,  281 

298 

379 

ii.  1 

277,  287 

i.  3-5 

303 

142 

ii.  1-3 

276 

i.  4 

295,  296 

,  147,  274 

ii.4 

277 

i.  5 

294 

141 

ii.5 

277,  286,  287 

i.  6 

294 

274 

ii.  6 

276 

1.7 

294,  298,  310 

253 

ii.  7 

287 

i.  8 

310 

274 

ii.  8 

276,  278,  284 

i.  10-12 

296,  321 

253 

ii.  11 

284 

i.  11 

294,  298  sq., 

147,  274 

ii.  12 

285,  287 

301,  30^ 

5,305 

274 

ii.  13 

285 

i.  12 

310 

253 

ii.  14-26 

251,  283, 

i.  13 

294,  298,  310 

462 

288-291 

i.  14 

310 

125 

ii.  19 

284 

i.  15 

310 

462 

ii.  23 

250 

i.  15, 16 

295 

462 

iii.  1,  2 

279 

i.  17 

295,  296,  303 

473 

iii.  1-12 

281 

i.  18 

302 

379 

iii.  6 

280 

i.  19 

293,  298,  302 

482 

iii.  9 

279,  280 

i.  20 

295,  298  sq. 

462 

iii.  13 

292 

i.  21 

294,  303 

484 

iii.  13-18 

281 

i.22 

310 

433 

iii.  15 

283,  284 

i.  23 

310 

146 

iii.  16 

284 

i.  24 

297 

473 

iii.  17 

283 

ii.  1 

297,  310 

316 

iv.  1 

283 

ii.2 

310 

544 

iv.  1-5 

280 

ii.4 

295,  298 

335 

iv.  4 

280,  281 

ii.  4,  5 

293 

468 

iv.  5 

281 

ii.4-8 

296 

330 

iv.  7 

284 

ii.5 

298 

473 

iv.  9 

283 

ii.  6-8 

293 

166,  479 

iv.  9-11 

292 

ii.  8 

fm 

INDEX   OF   TEXTS 


611 


1  Peter: 

2  Peter : 

1  Thessalonians : 

ii.  9 

293, 

295,  296, 

ii.  5 

304 

iv.  3,  4 

446 

297,  319 

ii.6-8 

322 

iv.  11 

453 

ii.  10 

293 

294,  297 

ii.  11 

322 

iv.  13-18 

471 

ii.  11 

297,  303 

ii.  13 

315,  322 

iv.  14 

474 

ii.  13 

298 

ii.  15,  16 

322 

iv.  15 

335,  474 

ii.  19 

294 

ii.  17 

322 

iv.  16 

478 

ii.  19,  20 

301 

ii.  18,  19 

322 

V.2 

470 

ii.  21 

294, 

295,  298, 

ii.20 

318 

V.  10 

407 

301,  302 
ii.  22 

298 

ii.  20-22 
iii.  2,  3 

323 
323 

2  Thessalonians 

422 

454 

448,  472 

ii.  23 

311 

iii.  3-5 

256 

i.  11 
ii.  1-3 
ii.  1-12 

ii.  24 

ii.  25 

301,  310 

298 

iii.  4 
iii.  5 

323 
323 

316, 

iii.  8,  9 
iii.  14 
iii.  15 

311 

294 
298 

iii.  6 
iii.  7 
iii.  8 

323 
323 
323 

sq. 
ii.  4 
ii.  7 
ii.  8 
ii.  12 
ii.  13 

452 

550 

525,  550 

470 

422 

385,  437 

iii.  17,  18 

311 

iii.  9 

323 

iii.  18 
303 

297, 

298,  301, 

iii.  10-13 
iii.  13 

323 
318 

iii.  18-20 
iii.  19 

304  sq. 

305 

iii.  14, 15 
iii.  15, 16 

323 

256 

iii.  6-15 
iii.  10-13 

454 
453 

iii.  20 

322 

iii.  16 

324 

Galatians : 

iii.  21 

297 

,  298,  310 

iii.  17, 18 

324 

i.  4 

407,  464 

iii.  22 

303,  306 

i.  13 

458 

iv.  1 

297, 

298,  301, 

Jude: 

i.  15 

330 

302,  311 

V.  1            312 

,  317,  318 

i.  16 

341 

iv.2 

297 

V.  2 

312 

i.  17 

331 

iv.  2,  3 

297 

V.3 

312,  318 

i.  19 

250 

iv.  6 

297 

,  304  sq. 

V.4: 

313,  318 

ii.  6 

422 

iv.  10 

296 

V.5 

31? 

ii.  6-10 

274 

iv.  11 

298,  311 

V.6 

313 

ii.  9 

141 

,  272,  297 

iv.  12  sq. 

294 

V.7 

314 

ii.  11 

141 

iv.  13 

294 

,  301,  302 

v.S 

314,  315 

ii.  12 

272 

iv.  13,  14 

294 

V.9 

314 

ii.  12-14 

147 

iv.  16 

301 

u.lO 

314,  315 

ii.  14-21 

331 

v.  1 

301 

^;.ll 

314 

ii.  19 

372, 

406,  426 

V.  4 

294,  298 

vv.  12  sq. 

315,  322 

ii.20 

341, 

423,  426 

V.  10 

296 

y.  13 

315,  322 

ii.  21 

363 

vv.  14, 15 

316 

iii.  1 

357 

2  Peter : 

V.  15 

323 

iii.  3 

357,426 

i.  1 

319 

V.  16 

316,  323 

iii.  4 

471 

i.  2 

319 

v.n 

316,  323 

iii.  5 

347 

i.  3 

318,  319 

V.  18 

316,  323 

iii.  18,  19 

457 

i.  4 

319 

u.  19 

317,  318 

iii.  20,  21 

457 

i.5-7 

319 

V.20 

317,  318 

iii.  22 

341 

i.  8 

318 

V.  21 

317,  318 

iii.  22  sq. 

450 

i.  9 

319 

V.  22 

317 

iii.  23 

344 

i.  11 

318 

u.  23 

317 

iii.  24 

457 

i.  12-15 

320 

u.  24 

317,  318 

iv.  1 

457 

i.  16-18 

320 

V.  25 

317,  318 

iv.  15 

458 

i.  16-21 

318 

i.  19,  21 

320,  321 

1  Thessalonians 

: 

1  Corinthians: 

ii.  1 

318 

i.  1 

458 

i.  2 

390,  458 

ii.  1-3 

322 

i.  3 

422 

i.7,8 

471 

ii.  4 

305,  322 

ii.  9 

453 

i.  13 

464 

612 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS 


1  Corinthians : 

1  Corinthians : 

1  Corinthians : 

i.  13-16 

461 

xi.  2 

334 

xvi.  2 

453 

i.  16 

462 

xi.  3 

460 

xvi.  9 

458 

i.  18 

405 

xi.  5 

460,  461 

i.  21 

380 

xi.7 

395 

2  Corinthians : 

1.23 

403 

xi.  11 

446,  460 

i.  3 

377 

i.  30 

408 

xi.  12 

460 

i.  23 

344 

ii.  1-5 

484 

xi.  13 

461 

ii.  13 

344 

ii.  2 

405 

xi.  15 

460 

ii.  16 

371 

ii.  7 

385 

xi.  23 

334 

iii.  6-18 

363 

ii.  10  sq. 

442  sq. 

xi.  23-25 

463 

iii.  7 

369 

ii.  11 

344 

xi.  24,  25 

124 

iii.  7-11 

491 

ii.  13 

444 

xii. 

434  ,sg. 

iii.  8-11 

367 

ii.  14, 15 

341 

xii.  1 

437 

iii.  9-11 

374 

ii.  15 

434 

xii.  3 

389 

iii.  10 

26 

iii.  1-3 

343 

xii.  4-6 

445 

iii.  11 

373 

iii.  3 

346 

xii.  11 

444 

iii.  17, 18 

443 

iii.  6-9 

466 

xii.  12 

465 

iv.5 

390 

iii.  14,  15 

480 

xii.  21 

465 

iv.  11 

340 

iii.  16,  17 

438,  466 

xii.  28 

458,  467,  468 

V.  2 

476 

iii.  18 

464 

xii.  31 

435 

V.  6 

341 

iii.  22 

351 

xiii. 

435 

V.  6-8 

474,  478 

iii.  23 

399 

xiii.  2 

519 

V.  10 

480 

iv.5 

471 

xiii.  3 

453 

V.  14  sq. 

425 

V.3 

344 

xiii.  10 

377 

V.  15 

357,  407 

V.  5 

344 

xiii.  13 

377,  519 

V.  16 

335 

V.  7 

446 

xiv. 

435  sg. 

V.17 

423 

V.  10, 11 

446 

xiv.  1 

437 

V.  18-20 

408,  414 

vi.  11 

437 

xiv.  18 

434 

V.  21         390, 

407,  410, 

vi.  12 

313 

xiv.  34 

460,  461 

411,423. 

vi.  13 

340,  438,  446 

xiv.  35 

461 

vi.  14-16 

466 

vi.  14 

399 

XV.  3  270,271,334,406 

vii.  1 

340 

vi.  17 

446 

XV.  3-8 

335 

vii.  5 

344 

vi.  19 

438 

XV.  5-8 

329 

viii.  2 

453 

vi.  20 

408 

XV.  6 

474 

viii.  9 

393 

vii.  1  sq. 

447  sq. 

XV.  7 

250 

viii.  13 

453 

vii.  10 

335 

XV.  9 

458 

viii.  14 

453 

vii.  14 

463 

XV.  10 

336 

ix.  7 

453 

vii.  19 

364 

XV.  12  sq. 

470,  474  sg. 

ix.  11 

453 

vii.  23 

408 

XV.  18 

433,  474 

X.  4 

503 

vii.  25 

335 

XV.  20 

474 

xi.  18 

341 

vii.  31 

453 

XV.  21  sq. 

392  sg. 

xii.  1 

433 

vii.  39 

474 

XV.  22 

481 

xii.  1  sq. 

329 

viii.  1  sq. 

455  sq. 

XV.  24-28 

399,  481 

xii.  4 

433 

viii.  6 

393,  395 

XV.  26 

474 

xii.  8,  9 

390 

ix.  11 

341 

XV.  27 

390 

xii.  13, 14 

453 

ix.  14 

335 

XV.  28 

481 

xiii.  4 

399 

ix.21 

372 

XV.  29,  30 

461 

xiii.  5 

423 

ix.  24-27 

347 

XV.  39 

341 

xiii.  14 

445 

ix.  27 

347 

XV.  45      341,343,443 

x.3,4 

467 

XV.  45-49 

349  sg. 

Romans : 

X.  4 

379,  393 

XV.  47 

393,  401 

i.  3 

305,  391 

X.  16, 17 

464 

XV.  49 

395 

i.  4 

390 

X.22 

390 

XV.  50 

341,  458 

i.  5 

305 

X.  27-33 

456 

XV.  54 

474 

i.  16 

36,  272 

xi. 

460 

XV.  56 

352,  474 

1.17 

420 

INDEX   OF   TEXTS 


613 


Romans : 

Romans : 

Romans : 

i.  18 

352, 

377 

vi.  1 

313 

ix.23 

377 

i.  19 

379 

vi.  1-7 

462 

ix.  30-33 

363 

i.  20 

352 

379, 

380 

vi.  2  sq. 

424 

X. 

380  sq. 

i.  21 

380 

vi.  3 

461 

X.  3 

418,  420,  422 

i.  28 

380 

vi.  4     357  sq. 

399,  477 

X.  4 

373 

ii.  1 

352 

vi.  5 

461 

X.5 

369 

ii.  4 

377 

vi.  6 

345,  357 

X.  9 

389 

ii.  5 

377 

vi.  7         417, 

418,  424 

X.  10 

422 

ii.  5-9 

480 

vi.  8 

357 

X.  12 

390 

ii.  8 

377 

vi.  12  sq. 

346 

X.  13 

390 

ii.  8,  9 

482 

vi.  13 

340 

xi. 

380  sq. 

ii.  14 

360 

361 

363 

vi.  15 

373 

xi.  14 

341 

ii.  15 

361 

vi.  15-23 

324 

xi.  20 

296 

ii.  23 

353 

vi.  19 

345 

xi.  21 

360 

ii.  27-29 

363 

vii.  4 

477 

xi.  28 

260,  377 

iii.  1-5 

380 

vii.  6 

363 

xi.  31 

377 

iii.  5 

420 

vii.  7 

364,  365 

xi.  32 

376,  386 

iii.  9 

353 

vii.  7-11 

363 

xii.  1 

340,  377 

iii.  10-19 

364 

vii.  7-13 

370 

xii.  5 

465 

iii.  20 

363, 

369 

vii.  7-25     328 

sq.,  338 

xiii. 

452  sq. 

iii.  21,  22 

420 

sq.,  372 

xiii.  4 

550 

iii.  22 

422 

vii.  8 

371 

xiii.  8-10 

368 

iii.  23 

352 

vii.  9 

371 

xiv. 

454  sq. 

iii.  24 

376 

vii.  10 

367 

xiv.  2 

465 

iii.  24-26 

513,408,412 

vii.  12 

491,  365 

xiv.  3 

465 

sq. 

vii.  14 

365 

xiv.  9 

399,  407 

iii.  25 

514 

vii.  18-25 

342  sq. 

xiv.  10 

480 

iii.  25,  26 

378, 

420 

vii.  25 

371 

xiv.  12 

480 

iii.  26 

410 

viii.  2 

494 

xiv.  17 

439,  458 

iii.  29 

380 

viii.  2  sq. 

441  sq. 

xiv.  23 

422 

iv.  1 

341 

viii.  3       340, 

345,  369, 

XV.  7 

465 

iv.3 

362 

391,  392,  396 

,407 

XV.  27 

341 

iv.4 

419 

viii.  3  sq. 

346,  363 

xvi.  5 

458 

iv.  5 

362 

viii.  4 

372 

iv.  5-8 

418 

viii.  6 

343 

Colossians : 

iv.  9 

362 

viii.  7 

369,  377 

i.  13 

408 

iv.  13 

362 

,370 

\iii.  9  sq. 

444 

i.  13-17 

394  sq. 

iv.  15 

353 

,377 

viii.  11 

340 

i.  15-17 

502,  539 

iv.  16 

362 

viii.  13 

347,  447 

i.  16 

398 

iv.  22 

362 

viii.  14 

440 

i.  19 

399 

iv.  25 

407 

,415 

,418 

viii.  15-17 

440 

i.  20 

481 

V.  2 

376 

viii.  16 

343 

i.  20-22 

408,  414 

V.  5 

437 

viii.  18-25 

379 

i.  21 

377 

V.  8 

376 

,415 

viii.  23 

340 

ii.  9 

395 

V.  9 

377 

,414 

viii.  28 

385 

ii.  14 

407 

V.  10 

377 

414 

,415 

viii.  29 

385,  394 

ii.  16,  17 

373 

V.  10,  11 

408 

,410 

viii.  32 

407,  415 

ii.  16-23 

348 

V.  12 

340 

,353 

viii.  33 

385 

ii.20 

357,  426 

V.  12  sq. 

392  sq. 

viii.  34 

407 

iii.  1 

335 

V.  13 

352 

,364 

viii.  38,  39 

376 

iii.  8 

296,  366 

V.  12-21 

345,  349  sq. 

ix. 

380  sq. 

iii.  10 

406 

V.  14 

353 

ix.  4 

360 

iii.  12 

369 

V.  17 

420 

ix.  5            341,  397  sq. 

iii.  13 

404  5?.,  410 

V.  18 

410 

ix.8 

341 

iii.  19 

491,  492,  365 

V.  20 

303 

370 

ix.13 

378 

370,  373 

614 


INDEX    OF    TEXTS 


Colossians : 

Ephesians  ; 

Hebrews : 

iii.  21 

366 

iii.  17 

422,  423 

1.14 

491,  494 

iii.  21,  22 

362 

iv.  3 

469 

ii. 

487 

iii  23  sq. 

363 

iv.  4-6 

445 

ii.  1,2 

494 

iii.  24 

374 

iv.  11 

326,  467 

ii.  3 

484,  486,  499 

iii.  24,  25 

373 

iv.  25  sq. 

457 

ii.4 

499 

iii.  26,  27 

440 

V.  2 

409 

11.5 

501 

iii.  28          446 

,  457,  460 

V.  22-33 

457 

11.8 

501 

iv.  3 

494,  369 

V.  25 

460 

11.9 

500 

iv.  4           391 

392,  396, 

vi.  1-3 

457 

11.  10 

498,  519 

400,  408 

vi.  5-9 

450,  457 

11.  11-13 

499 

iv.  6 

440  sq. 

11.  14 

499 

iv.  9 

493,  369 

Philippians 

459 

11.17 

499,  513 

iv.  30 

44 

i.  1 

iii. 

487,  493 

V.  4 

363,  368 

i.  22 

341 

iii.  2 

499 

V.  6 

291,  422 

i.  23 

351,  474,  478 

iii.  2-5 

490,  501 

V.  11 

403 

ii.  5-9  267, 394,  396  sq. 

iii.  3 

503 

V.  16 

437 

ii.  8 

405 

iii.  6 

501,  520 

V.  19 

437 

ii.  8,  9 

228 

iii.  7  sq. 
ill.  12 

520 

V.  19-21 

345 

ii.  9-11 

399,  410 

485 

V.  19-23 

340 

ii.  10 

481 

iii.  14 

616,  520 

V.  21 

458 

ii.  10,  11 

390 

iv. 

487 

V.22 

439 

iii.  9      418,420,42,3,426 

iv.  2 

515 

V.  25 

437,  446 

iii.  9-11 

429 

iv.  6,  7 

620 

vi.  1 

434,  437 

iii.  10 

426,  464 

iv.  9 

520 

vi.  2 

363,  437 

iii.  10,  11 

477,  481 

iv.  11-13 

520 

vi.3 

438 

iii.  21 

346,  395 

iv.  12 

537 

vi.6 

453 

iv.  5 

471 

iv.  14 

501 

vi.  7 

480 

1  Timothy: 

iv.  14-16 

521 

vi.  8 

343,  480 

i.  9-11 

368 

iv.  15 

506 

vi.lO 

463 

ii.4 

386 

V.  1 

502 

vi.  12 

341 

ii.6 

408 

V.  1-9 

506 

vi.l4 

405 

ii.  12 

460 

V.  3 

502 

ii.  14 

460 

V.  5     499 

501,  503,  506 

Philemon : 

iii.  16 

391 

V.  6 

506 

V.  16 

341 

iv.  1 

316 

V.  7 

499 

iv.  10 

386 

V.  7-9 

506 

Ephesians : 

V.  8 

499,  500 

i.  4 

385 

2  Timothy : 

V.  9 

500 

i.  5 

209 

i.  10 

351 

V.  12 

486 

i.  7 

408 

iii.  2 

316 

V.  18 

616 

i.  9 

387 

Titus : 

Vi.  1  sq, 

521 

1.10 
i.  13 

465,  481 
422 

ii.  14 

408 

vi.  2 

vi.  4-8 

485 
521 

i.  21 

464 

Hebrews : 

vi.  10 

486,  520 

i.  22 

465 

i. 

487 

vi.  19 

515 

ii.  3 

359  sg. 

i.  1 

490,  491 

vii.  1-10 

506 

ii.4 

376 

i.2 

490, 

500,  501 

vii.  3 

503,  507,  508 

ii.  4,  5 

415 

i.  3     491, 

499, 

500,  502 

vii.  9,  10 

507 

ii.  11-20 

405 

1.4 

494 

vii.  11 

494 

ii.  16 

414 

1.5 

494,  503 

vii.  11  sq. 

507 

ii.  20           142, 

326,  438 

1.6 

491 

,  494,  500 

vii.  14 

499 

ii.  21,  22 

466 

1.8 

501,  503 

vii.  16 

494,  501,  503 

ii.22 

438 

i.S  sq. 

494 

vii.  18 

493,  494 

iii.  5 

326 

1.9 

604 

vii.  19 

4JM 

iii.  11 

385 

1.10 

503 

vii.  23-25 

508 

INDEX   OF   TEXTS 


615 


Hebrews : 

Hebrews : 

Revelation : 

vii.  24 

501 

xi.  16 

522 

ii.  14 

552 

vii.  26 

499 

xi.  17-19 

517 

ii.  14, 15 

544 

vii.  27 

508 

xi.  20 

518 

ii.  17 

540 

vii.  28 

493,  501 

xi.  21 

518 

ii.  19 

546 

viii.  1 

508 

xi.  22 

518 

ii.  20 

552 

viii.  1  sq. 

509 

xi.  23 

518 

ii.  23 

538,  546 

viii.  5 

208,  490,  495 

xi.  24-26 

518 

ii.  24 

545,  546 

viii.  7-9 

490 

xi.  33-38 

518 

ii.  26 

546,  547 

viii.  8 

494 

xii.  1 

519 

ii.  27 

538,  540 

viii.  13 

494 

xii.  2 

519 

iii.  1 

540 

ix.  i 

495,  509 

xii.  1-13 

485 

iii.  1-6 

545 

ix.  1  sq. 

490 

xii.  2 

499 

iii.  2 

539 

ix.  2-5 

509 

xii.  3 

499 

iii.  5 

540 

ix.  5 

413,  514 

xii.  5-11 

519 

iii.  7 

544 

ix.  6,  7 

509 

xii.  18-21 

491 

iii.  9 

543 

ix.8 

509 

xii.  22,  23 

522 

iii.  11 

551 

ix.  9 

495,  510 

xii.  23 

308 

iii.  12 

540,  544 

ix.  10 

493,  494,  510 

xii.  27 

522 

iii.  14 

539 

ix.  11-14 

510 

xii.  28 

522 

iii.  14-22 

546 

ix.  12-15 

513 

xiii.  1-3 

520 

iii.  21 

516,  538,  540 

ix.  14 

508 

xiii.  8 

501 

iv.  1 

529 

ix.  15 

510 

xiii.  9 

485 

iv.  5 

540 

ix.  16,  17 

510 

xiii.  10-13 

406 

iv.  9,  10 

539 

ix.  18-21 

491 

xiii.  12 

499 

V.  2 

542 

ix.  22 

511 

xiii.  15 

522 

V.  5 

536,  542 

ix.23 

495,  511 

xiii.  20 

499 

V.  6 

540,  542 

ix.24 

495,  511 

xiii.  24 

485 

V.  8 

530,  538,  549 

ix.  25,  26 

511 

V.9 

537,  543 

ix.26 

508,  510 

Revelation : 

V.  9, 10 

530 

ix.  27,  28 

512 

i.  1 

534 

V.  10 

543,  549 

X.  1 

493,  496 

i.  1-3 

558 

V.  11  sq. 

530 

X.  3 

493,  514 

i.  4 

540 

V.  12 

538,  542 

X.  4 

493 

i.  5 

536 

,537 

V.  13 

542 

X.7 

499 

i.  6             538 

540 

,543 

vi.  1,  2 

530 

X.  11 

493 

i.  7 

537 

,551 

vi.  3,  4 

530 

X.12 

508 

i.  8 

538 

vi.  5,  6 

530 

X.  14 

512 

i.  9 

536, 

551 

vi.  7,  8 

530 

X.  16,  17 

512 

i.  10 

548 

vi.  9 

548 

X.  18 

512 

i,  12-15 

537 

vi.  9-11 

530 

X.  20 

508 

i.  14,  15 

538 

vi.  12-17 

530 

X.  24 

520 

i.  16, 17 

537 

vi.  16, 17 

538,  552 

X.  25-37 

520 

i.  17,  18 

538 

vii.  1-12 

531 

X.  26-31 

521 

i.  18 

536 

,538 

vii.  4-8 

542 

X.  26 

521 

i.  20 

537 

vii.  9 

542 

X.  32,  33 

485 

ii.  3 

551 

vii.  10 

5.38 

X.  34,  35 

522 

ii.  4 

551 

vii.  13-17 

531 

xi. 

290,  490 

ii.  4-7 

544 

vii.  14 

537,  547 

xi.  1 

515 

ii.5 

546 

vii.  17 

538 

xi.  3 

502,  516 

ii.6 

544 

,552 

viii.  1 

531 

xi.  4 

516 

ii.  8 

544 

viii.  3 

549 

xi.6 

515 

ii.  9 

542 

viii.  3-5 

552 

xi.  7 

516 

ii.  10 

551 

ix.  1 

553 

xi.  8-12 

517 

ii.  10-19 

547 

ix.  11 

553 

xi.  10 

522 

ii.  12-29 

544 

X.  1  sq. 

531 

xi.  13-16 

617 

ii.  13    545, 547 

, 548,  551 

X.6 

639 

616 


INDEX    OF   TEXTS 


evelation : 

Revelation : 

1  John : 

X.  9-11 

531 

xix.  10 

538,  546 

ii.  16 

573,  587 

xi.  1-8 

557 

xix.  12 

539,  540 

ii.  18 

588 

xi.  1-14 

532 

xix.  13 

540 

ii.22 

588 

xi.  7 

553 

xix.  15 

561 

ii.  27 

593 

xi.  8 

536 

,552 

xix.  16 

537 

ii.29   575,576,591,592 

xi.  15 

536 

,552 

xix.  20 

555 

iii.  1    181 

,570 

,  576,  593 

xi.  15-18 

532 

XX.  1-10 

665 

iii.  3 

576 

xi.  17 

552 

XX.  1-6 

534 

iii.  4 

587 

xi.  18 

543 

,549 

XX.  4 

538 

iii.  5 

588,  589 

xi.  19 

532 

XX.  6 

538,  549 

iii.  6 

593 

xii. 

557 

XX.  7-10 

534 

iii.  6-10 

587 

xii.  1         532, 

530, 

652 

XX.  8 

559 

iii.  8 

588 

xii.  3 

536 

XX.  9 

543,  561 

iii.  9 

572, 

576,  691 

xii.  3-6 

532 

XX.  11-15 

534,  556 

iii.  10 

576 

,  588,  593 

xii.  4 

196 

XX.  12 

547,  561 

iii.  11 

575 

xii.  5           536 

,537 

,538 

xxi.  1 

558 

iii.  14 

576 

xii.  6 

536 

xxi.  1,  2 

555 

iii.  16 

589 

xii.  7 

561 

xxi.  2 

543,  548,  562 

iii.  17 

588 

xii.  7-12 

532 

xxi.  4 

562 

iii.  19,  20 

575 

xii.  9 

532 

xxi.  6 

538,  547 

iv.  3 

550,  588 

xii.  10 

553 

xxi.  7 

538 

iv.4 

206 

xii.  11 

546 

,547 

xxi.  11  sq. 

562 

iv. 7    231 

567 

570,  572, 

xii.  13-17 

532 

xxi.  14 

536,  548 

574,  592 

xii.  16 

553 

xxii.  1,  2 

562 

iv.  7,  8 

577 

xii.  17        536, 

538, 

546, 

xxii.  1-3 

538 

iv.  8 

567,  570 

391 

xxii.  3-5 

562 

iv.  9 

201 

xiii.  1 

532, 

553 

xxii.  5 

549 

iv.lO 

690 

xiii.  3 

532 

,533 

xxii.  6,  7 

558 

iv.l2 

571,  574 

xiii.  7 

561 

xxii.  8,  9 

538 

iv.  14 

588 

xiii.  10 

547 

xxii.  12 

546 

iv.  16 

570 

xiii.  11 

653 

xxii.  13 

538 

iv.  17 

237 

xiii.  11-17 

532 

xxii.  14 

537 

V.  1 

591,  592 

xiii.  12 

663 

xxii.  16 

536,  538 

V.  4 

592 

xiii.  13-17 

561 

xxii.  17 

534,  543,  547 

V.  16, 17 

588 

xiv.  1 

540 

,543 

548 

V.  18 

591,  592 

xiv.  3,  4 

537 

xxii.  18,  19                534 

V.  19 

587 

xiv.  4 

548 

xxii.  20 

534,  537 

V.  20 

570 

,  574,  577 

xiv.  12 

546 

,547 

xiv.  14 

537 

1  John : 

2  John : 

xiv.  14-16 

537 

i.  1 

585 

vv.  3,  4 

570 

XV.  3 

546 

i.  2,  3 

574 

V.  4 

573,  575 

xvii.  1  sq. 

654 

i.5 

570,  671 

V.5 

575 

xvii.  1-6 

633 

i.  6 

587 

V.7 

550,  588 

xvii.  6 

548 

i.  7 

567,  575,  589 

xvii.  8 

533 

,553 

i.  9 

576 

3  John : 

xvii.  11 

534 

i.  10 

587 

V.3 

575 

xvii.  14 

537 

ii.  1     181 

213,  570,  573 

xviii.  20 
xviii.  22,  23 

548 
561 

589 

ii.2 

590 

The  Old  Testament. 

xix.  2 

561 

ii.  5 

572 

Genesis : 

xix.  2-5 

543 

ii.6 

593 

i.2 

431 

xix.  5 

549 

ii.  9, 10 

572 

i.  27 

117 

xix.  7 

543 

ii.  10 

575,  576 

ii.  7 

341 

xix.  7-9 

548 

ii.  13 

573 

ii.  17 

282 

xix.  8 

546 

,561 

ii.  15 

573,  576 

ii.  18-20 

460 

INDEX    OF    TEXTS 


617 


Genesis: 

2  Samuel : 

Isaiah: 

ii.  24 

117 

xxxii.  2 

431 

Ixvi.  6 

539 

iii.  1  sq. 

195 

iii.  3 

354 

Job: 

Jeremiah : 

iii.  15 

391 

1.6 

57 

i.5 

209 

iv.  5  sq. 

315 

xi.  1 

57 

xxiii.  5 

28 

vi.  1-4          57, 

304,  313 

xvi.  21 

45 

xxiii.  29 

578 

xiv.  18-20 

506 

XXV.  6 

45 

xxxi.  20 

67 

XV.  6 

362 

xxvii.  7 

578 

xxxi.  31-34 

23 

,130 

xix. 

314 

xxxi.  34 

30 

xxviii.  12 

199 

Psalms : 
ii.  7 

57 

xxxiii.  17 

28 

Exodus  : 

V.  3 

67 

Daniel: 

iii.  6 

100 

vii.  9 

538 

11.44 

29 

iv.  22 

58 

viii.  4 

45 

vii.  6,  7 

553 

xix.  4 

366 

xxiv.  10 

67 

vii.  9 

538 

xix.  5, 6 

29 

xxvii.  9 

67 

vii.  13,  14 

45,46 

,50, 

XX.  2 

366 

xxxi.  16 

67 

158 

xxi.  24 

21 

xxxiii.  4 

578 

vii.  27 

45 

xxi.  30 

127 

xxxiii.  6 

578 

viii.  15 

45 

xxii.  28 

57 

xiv.  7 

503 

X.  5 

45 

xxiv. 

129 

Ii.  11 

431 

x.  16 

45 

XXV.  17-20 

413 

Ixxiv.  4 

513 

xil.  2 

166 

XXX.  12 

127 

lxxv.3 

513 

xxxi.  3,  4 

431 

Ixxxii.  6 

503 

Hosea : 

Leviticus : 

Ixxxii.  6,  7 
Ixxxix.  26,  27 

57 

68 

xi.  1 

67 

xix.  18 
xxii.  20,  21 

21 
302 

Ixxxix.  27 
cii.  25 

57 
503 

Joel: 
11.  28-32 

530 

Numbers  : 
xiv.  28-30 
xvi. 

xxiii.  19 
XXV.  31 

313 
315 
45 
127 
315 

ciii.  13 
ex. 
civ.  30 

Proverbs : 
viii.  4 

67 

91 

431 

579 

11.32 

Micah: 
vi.  8 

Malachl : 

390 
291 

xxxi. 

viii.  22 

639 

11.10 

68 

Deuteronomy: 
i.  31 

67 

viii.  22,  23 
viii.  30,  31 

579 
579 

Apocryphal  Books. 

iv.  2 
iv.  6-8 
viii.  5 
xiv.  1,  2 
xviii.  15-19 
xxii.  6-10 
xxiv.  1 
xxxii.  21 
xxxiii.  2 

535 

366 

67 

57 

266 
58 
116 
390 
491 

Isaiah : 
1.2 
ii.  1 
11.3 
V.  20 
vi.  9,  10 
viii.  14,  15 
xiv.  12 
xxviii.  16 

67 
578 

28 
102 
121 
296 

85 
296 

Enoch : 
1.9 

V.  4 

xxvii.  2 
xxxvii.-lxxii. 

4  Esdras : 
vii.  28,  29 

316 
316 

316 
44 

58 

Judges : 
xiv.  6 

liii.  5, 11 

301 

Ecclesiasticus : 

431 

liii.  7 
Iv.  10 

536,  589 

578 

1.  4,  10 
xxiv.  3-12 

579 
579 

1  Samuel : 
X.  10 

431 

Ixii.  7 
Ixiii.  10 

28 
431 

Wisdom  of  Solomon 

Ixiii.  16 

68 

vii.  10,  22,  24 

25-29 

2  Samuel : 

Ixvi.  1 

66 

579 

vii.  14 

57,68 

Ixvi.  3,  4 

30 

xviii.  15, 16 

537 

v 


1 
i 

DATE  DUE                          1 

im^^mmm^. 

1 

.MyMHii^^ 

f 

rmmm 

Sir 

.Wh^^rm^^ 

0 

i» 

! 

i 

CAYLORO 

PMIMTCOINU.S.A. 

rC^ 


,*'t'=* 


*  -i''-  -u 


BS2397 .S84 

The  theology  of  the  New  Testament, 

Princeton  Theological  Semlnary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00012  8704 


:^^^^^ 


